Request for Legal Opinion on the Legality of the Provincial Tax Ordinance of Laguna, Specifically on the Imposition of Amusement Taxes from Proprietors, Lessees or Operators of Resorts or Swimming Pools, Including Private Pools, Charging Fees from the Public.

August 31, 1999 DILG OPINION NO. 119-99 Mr. Nilcar B. Donato President, Tourism Association of Laguna La Vista Pansol Resort Pansol, Calamba, Laguna RE : Request for Legal Opinion on the Legality of the Provincial Tax Ordinance of Laguna, Specifically on the Imposition of Amusement Taxes from Proprietors, Lessees or Operators of Resorts or Swimming Pools, Including Private Pools, Charging Fees from the Public. S i r : At the outset, please be apprised that this Department does not have any revisory authority to rule on the propriety of any tax ordinance because under Section 187 of the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160), any question on the constitutionality or legality of tax ordinances or revenue measures may be appealed to the Secretary of Justice within thirty (30) days from its effectivity. It appearing, however, that such an appeal is no longer possible at this time since the questioned provincial tax ordinance was passed by the sangguniang panlalawigan some three years ago, the legality thereof can only be pursued before a court of competent jurisdiction by availing of the remedies provided for under the Rules of Court. cdlex Nevertheless, in view of your above-captioned request, please be informed that we answer your query in the affirmative inasmuch as these resorts are places where one could have an amusement, that is, as defined in Section 131 (b) of the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160), a pleasurable diversion which is synonymous to entertainment, relaxation, avocation, pastime, or fun. This is even more evident from a closer examination of Section 140 of the Code where "other places of amusement" are included among the subjects on which the province may levy an amusement tax. In that regard, the Department of Finance had earlier opined that "the power to impose amusement tax on "other places of amusement" covers resorts since these are places where the public usually seek admission for entertainment, fun and relaxation" (DOF Opinion dated August 21, 1993). Be that as it may, the amusement tax may only be levied and collected on "gross receipts from admission fees". Stated otherwise, in cases where no admission fees are charged, the amusement place shall not be subject to the said 30% amusement tax (DOF Opinions dated February 20, 1995 and July 19, 1994). Be that as it may, if it were true, as represented that Resolution No. 679, Provincial Tax Ordinance No. 7, s. 1996, was enacted without complying with the procedural requirements in the approval of local tax ordinances as mandated under Sections 187 and 188 of the Code, the same could be invoked as a ground in questioning the legal propriety thereof before the proper court. Please be guided accordingly. Very truly yours, (SGD.) JESUS I. INGENIERO Assistant Secretary Department of Interior and Local Government