DOJ Opinion No. 118, s. 1991

DOJ OPINION NO. 118 , s. 1991 August 13, 1991 Mr. Cecilio G. Hechanova Chairman Philippine Sports Commission Rizal Memorial Sports Complex Vito Cruz, Malate Metro Manila Sir : This refers to your request for opinion relative to the interpretation of the provisions of Executive Order No. 443 (Imposing an Additional Duty of Nine Percent (9%) Ad Valorem On All Imported Articles Subject to Certain Exceptional And Conditions). Specifically, you inquire on the "coverage of the said (presidential issuance) vis-a-vis (your) enabling act, R.A. No. 6847 (The Philippine Sports Commission Act)", Section 19 of which reads: "SEC. 19. Tax Exemptions of the Commission . The Commission shall be exempted from the payment of customs, duties, taxes and tariffs on the importation of sportswear, equipment, supplies, instruments and materials, including this donated to the Commission, which are of international standard not available from local manufacturers and only in such numbers as may be required in the development of various sports and/or training of the national pool of athletes. The importation of sportswear, equipment, supplies, instruments and materials donated to the Philippine Olympic Committee and, through the Commission, to the various national sports associations certified under oath by the Commission to be required and necessary for the development of sports in the country shall also be exempt from the payment of custom duties, taxes and tariffs." The request, it appears, stemmed from the imposition of the nine percent (9%) ad valorem tax in the amount of P912,940.00 on the shipment consigned to the Philippine Sports Commission (PSC) consisting of one (1) lot/16 cases of gymnastics equipment from Marubeni Corporation (Japan) pursuant to a "grant" from the Japanese Government "duly" recognized by Foreign Affairs Secretary Raul J. Manglapus in a letter to the Charge d' Affaires of Japan". You believe that the "imposition of the additional 9% levy on all imported articles (being merely) an (e)executive issuance," your special law (R.A. No. 6847) "still prevails over said directive", and the exemption you have initially sought from the Office of the President is not necessary. With regret, I have to decline rendition of the opinion requested. The issuance in question was issued by the Office of the President. Like all other acts of the President, the same is binding upon all offices and bureaus of the executive branch, including the Department of Justice (Sec. of Justice Op. No. 7, s. 1989, citing Ops. No. 37, s. 1951 and No. 227, s. 1960; see also asp Ops. No. 12, 40, 139 and 203, s. 1989). Consequently, if any clarification is desired, the same should be sought from the aforesaid Office. Moreover, any opinion that I may render would be tantamount to a review not only of the aforesaid official act of the President but also those of the Department of Finance and the PSC the government agencies which jointly issued the guidelines for the implementation of Section 19 of R.A. No. 6847 regarding the tax exemptions of the Commission (Joint Order No. 1-90), and over whose actuation's this Department is devoid of any revisory authority (id., No. 22, s. 1989, citing Op. No. 63, s. 1977; No. 66, s. 1987). prcd Finally, the issue raised herein relates to the determination of the tax exemption status of the PSC, a function which legally and properly pertains to the Department of Finance, a coordinate and co-equal department, For the same reason, I cannot likewise rule therein (id., No. 179, s. 1989, citing Ops. 1, s. 1983; No. 123, s. 1980). Very truly yours, (SGD.) SILVESTRE H. BELLO III Acting Secretary