DOJ Opinion No. 103, s. 1993

DOJ OPINION NO. 103 , s. 1993 August 9, 1993 Mr. Benjamin S. Lim General Manager Duty Free Philippines Fiesta Shopping Center NAIA, Paraaque, Metro Manila Sir : This refers to your request for opinion on the "proper interpretation of the provisions of Executive Order No. 46" (1986), entitled "GRANTING THE MINISTRY OF TOURISM, THROUGH THE PHILIPPINE TOURISM AUTHORITY (PTA), AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A DUTY AND TAX FREE MERCHANDISING SYSTEM IN THE PHILIPPINES". You state that pursuant to Executive Order No. 46, the Duty Free Philippine Philippines (DFP) was established as a division under the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA) by the Department of TOURISM (DOT); that DFP, since the start of its operation, "has been importing goods and articles, whether consumable or non-consumable, tax and duty free"; that it has been selling said good and articles "only to authorized departing and incoming passengers at authorized venues in accordance with the implementing rules and regulations promulgated by the DOT, through TOURISM Administrative Order ("TAO") No. 89-04; that the said "TAO is a product of the joint cooperative effort among DOT, the Department of Finance ("DOF"), Bureau of Customs("BOC") and the National Tax Research Center"; and that the BOC "has indicated its desire to subject to taxes and duties all non-consumable articles purchased by incoming passengers from the DFP stores and shops", since on the basis of Customs Administrative Order (CAO) NO. 4-92 only "consumable articles so purchased" are deemed as exempted thereunder. dctai We are constrained, much to our regret, to decline rendition of opinion on your request. As noted above, the subject-matter of your request involves an administrative issuance of the Bureau of Customs relative to the implementation of the relevant provisions of the Tariff and Customs Code, as amended, and thus any opinion or official view that this Office may express thereon would be tantamount to a review of the position or actuations of the said agency on the matter. By well-settled policy and precedents, the Secretary of Justice has invariably declined to render opinion on matters involving the decision/ruling or actuations of another agency or office over which he has no revisory power, unless the request comes from such agency or office itself (Secretary of Justice Opns. No. 97, s. 1987; No. 123, s. 1980; Nos. 67 and 169, s. 1979; and No. 194, s. 1976). Very truly yours, (SGD.) FRANKLIN M. DRILON Secretary