DOJ Opinion No. 097, s. 1982

DOJ OPINION NO. 097 , s. 1982 June 22, 1982 Mr. Ramon B. Cardenas Deputy Director-General National Economic and Development Authority Padre Faura, Manila Sir : This is with reference to your letter in behalf of the Permanent Inter-Agency Technical Committee on Trade, Tariff and Related Matters requesting opinion on the legal effect of the Omnibus Investments Act (P.D. 1789) and of Batas Pambansa Blg. 84, upon the imposition of export taxes under Presidential Decree No. 230 and of the premium duties under Executive Order No. 425. P.D. No. 230 imposes an "export tariff" on the gross f.o.b. value of certain wood, mineral, plant, vegetable and animal products exported, including such "non-traditional exports" as bananas, shrimps and prawns, clinker and portland cement, and pineapple juice/concentrates. Executive Order No. 425 imposes, in addition, a "premium duty" on the wood, mineral, plant, vegetable, and export products enumerated in said Order. LLpr On the other hand, B.P. Blg. 84, which took effect after the P.D. No. 230 and Executive Order No. 425, imposes "rentals" on mineral lands which are under lease, and "royalty taxes" on minerals, mineral products or quarry resources extracted or produced from all mineral lands not covered by the lease, which taxes "shall be in lieu of all charges and fees imposed on minerals, mineral products and quarry resources under existing general or special laws" which charges and fees "are hereby abolished." Furthermore, P.D. No. 1789, the Omnibus Investments Code, was subsequently enacted, which, by express, provision thereof, "shall take effect immediately", and section 48(d) of which provides: "(d) Exemption from Export Tax, Impost and Fees . The provisions of law to the contrary notwithstanding, exports by registered export producer of its non-traditional registered export products shall be exempted. Opinion is sought by the Permanent Inter-Agency Technical Committee on Trade, Tariff and Related Matters particularly on the following questions: (1) whether or not Art 48(d) of P.D. 1789 has already nullified the export taxes and premium duties imposed under P.D. 230 and E.O. 425 or non-traditional registered export products ; and (2) whether or not B.P. Blg. 84, has affected the implementation of P.D. No. 230 and E. C. 425 insofar as export taxes and premium duties on minerals and mineral products are concerned. We are constrained to forebear rendition of opinion on the aforestated queries for reasons hereunder explained. In Opinion No. 194, series 1976, this Ministry reiterated the long standing policy that as a rule, it does not render opinion on a matter which falls within the jurisdiction of another government office, unless the head of said office or its ministry head requests this Ministry for opinion on such matter, "in connection with a question of law arising in the performance of their respective functions." This time-honored policy, is dictated not only by practical considerations, but by a sincere respect for the expertise on, and familiarity with, the policies relating to the subject, and the rightful exercise of jurisdiction by a co-equal, coordinate government office. In the instant case, we note that neither the Ministry of Finance, which has jurisdiction over the enforcement and collection of taxes, duties and other imposts, nor the Board of Investments, which is entrusted with the enforcement and implementation of the new Omnibus Investments Code (PD 1789), has yet expressed any ruling or opinion on the question herein presented. We submit that said government offices should first be accorded the opportunity to consider the aforestated questions which involve matters within their respective policy spheres and jurisdictions, as said offices are better situated to translate and transcribe the intent and policy behind these enactments and to give proper meaning and effect to such intent and policy. LexLib Significantly, one of the powers and duties of the BOI is stated in Article 7, Section 4 of P. D. 1789, to wit: "(4) After due hearing, decide controversies concerning the implementation of this Code that may arise between registered enterprises or investors therein and government agencies, within thirty (30) days after the controversy has been submitted for decision: Provided , That the investor or the registered enterprise may appeal the decision of the Board within thirty (30) days from the receipt thereof to the President." In view of the foregoing, we reiterate that we are constrained to forebear rendition of opinion on the questions aforestated, with the advice that the matter be first referred to the Ministry of Finance and the Board of Investments for comment or resolution of said questions. If the said offices should later desire to refer the matter to this Ministry for legal opinion, it will be our pleasure and honor to consider rendition of opinion on the questions. Very truly yours, (SGD.) RICARDO C. PUNO Minister of Justice