DOJ Opinion No. 103, s. 1984

DOJ OPINION NO. 103 , s. 1984 July 17, 1984 Engr. Bernardo M. Vergara General Manager Philippine Tourism Authority Manila Sir : This has reference to your request for "reconsideration" of Opinion No. 27, series of 1984 of this Ministry relative to the issue of "whether the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA) is exempted from payment of fees for the registration of its twenty-four (24) buses with the Bureau of Land Transportations (BLT)". Specifically, you take exception to our ruling that "insofar as motor vehicles registration fees are concerned, P.D. No. 1400 (1978) has been repealed by B.P. Blg. 43 (1979)" considering the "B.P. Blg. 43 is a special law and P.D. No. 1400 is a general law". You argue that "P.D. No. 1400 is a special law for it relates solely to the Philippine Tourism Authority". You also contend that "unlike B.P. No. 43 which specifically applies to the payment of registration fees by all owners of motor vehicles, P.D. No. 1400 exempts the Philippine Tourism Authority only from all kinds of taxes imposed by agencies of the National Government, which include motor vehicle registration fees, which accordingly would make it a special act". We find no sufficient justification to disturb the opinion in issue. It is established that a general law is one which embraces a class of subjects or places and do not omit any subject or place naturally belonging to such class, while a special act is one which relates to particular person or things of a class (see Valera v. Tuazon, Jr., 80 Phil. 823, 828, cited in Villegas v. Subido, 41 SCRA 190). As stated in the opinion sought to be reconsidered, and contrary to your contention, it is undeniable from the aforecited legal definitions that Batas Pambansa Blg. 43, not Presidential Decree No. 1400, is the special law. P.D. No. 1400 touches on the exemption of PTA from all kinds of taxes and fees imposed by the national government, regardless of their nature and origin, whereas B.P. Blg. 43 specifically and particularly covers the payment of registration fees by all owners of motor vehicles, which fees are necessarily included in the general tax exemption granted to the PTA by the Decree. P.D. No. 1400 is broad enough to embrace the fees subject of B.P. Blg. 43. At this point it may be reiterated that the rule in statutory construction is that, in case of irreconcilable conflict or repugnancy between a general law or provision and a special law or provision, the latter shall prevail (Sec. of Justice Opinion dated February 11, 1967) and repeals the earlier general law to the extent of any irreconcilable conflict between their provisions (73 Am. Jur. 2d 520). LexLib Applying this doctrine in the instant case, it is clear that B.P. Blg. 43, in effect, repealed P.D. No. 1400 insofar as the latter grants to PTA exemption from the payment of motor vehicles registration fees. This conclusion is bolstered by the peremptory provision contained in Section 1 of B.P. Blg. 43 to the effect that "no motor vehicles shall be exempted from payment of registration fees". In view of the foregoing, Opinion No. 27, s. 1984 of this Ministry is hereby affirmed. Very truly yours, (SGD.) ESTELITO P. MENDOZA Minister of Justice