DOJ Opinion No. 125, s. 1998

DOJ OPINION NO. 125 , s. 1998 October 12, 1998 Mr. Carlos P. Doble General Manager Public Estates Authority 7th Floor Legaspi Towers 200 Paseo de Roxas, Makati City Sir : Subject of herein request for opinion is whether or not the properties of the Public Estates Authority (PEA) along the Manila Bay Reclamation Area are subject to real property tax after the passage of the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC). The PEA is a government-owned and controlled corporation (GOCC) created under Presidential Decree No. 1084 dated February 4, 1977. Section 4 of Executive Order No. 654 dated February 26, 1981 (Further Defining Certain Functions and Powers of the Public Estates Authority) provides that ''(A)ll lands, buildings and other real properties of the Authority shall be exempt from the payment of real estates taxes." It is stated that the Cities of Paraaque and Pasay, relying on the separate Indorsements of Finance Undersecretaries Amatong and Soriano, and Las Pias, assessed and attempted to collect real property taxes over PEA's properties at the Boulevard Reclamation Area. These LGUs contended that R.A. No. 7160 (The Local Government Code of 1991) which took effect on January 1, 1992, has withdrawn the tax exemption granted to PEA by E.O. No. 654. They also invoked the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) v. Marcos (261 SCRA 667). PEA, on the other hand, contends that its properties are still exempt from real property tax inasmuch as its Charter, P.D. No. 1084, as amended by E.O. No. 654 has not been expressly repealed by R.A. No. 7160 and that the Supreme Court, in the above-cited case, has rather made a sweeping generalization that the tax exemptions granted to GOCCs are effectively withdrawn upon the passage of R.A. No. 7160 without taking into account the rule on implied repeal that the enactment of a later legislation which is a general law like the Local Government Code of 1991, cannot be construed to have repealed a special law like the Charter of PEA as amended by E.O. No 654. prcd With regret, this Department has to decline rendition of the opinion sought. The Supreme Court, in the above-mentioned case of Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) vs . Marcos had already rendered a ruling involving essentially the same subject matter to the effect that "(s)ince the last paragraph of Section 234 (Exemptions from Real Property Tax) unequivocally withdrew, upon the effectivity of the LGC, exemptions from payment of real property taxes granted to natural or juridical persons, including government-owned or controlled corporations, except as provided in the said section, and that petitioner is, undoubtedly, a government-owned corporation, it necessarily follows that its exemption from such tax granted it in Section 14 of its Charter, R.A. No. 6958, has been withdrawn. Any claim to the contrary can only be justified if the petitioner can seek refuge under any of the exceptions provided in Section 234 . . ." (Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority vs. Marcos, 261 SCRA 667, 687). Any opinion that may be rendered thereon would be tantamount to a review of the said Supreme Court ruling/decision. The Secretary of Justice has no revisory or appellate authority over courts. (Secretary of Justice Opn. No. 72, s. 1998). Likewise, pursuant to established policy and precedents, this Department has consistently desisted from passing upon the actions and/or actuations of officials/officers of an office or agency, in this case, the Department of Finance, over which the Secretary of Justice possesses no revisory authority nor supervisory jurisdiction, unless requested by the head of such office or agency ( Ibid ., No. 24, s. 1998, Nos. 55 and 80, s. 1997). Lastly, the resolution of the issue raised would also involve an interpretation and/or examination of the pertinent provisions of the Local Government Code of 1991, particularly Section 234 thereof. The interpretation and application of the provisions of the Local Government Code of 1991, however, properly fall within the jurisdiction of the Oversight Committee (Sec. 533, R.A. No. 7160) and the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), the lead agency designated by the President in the implementation of the said Code (Administrative Order No. 269 dated February 21, 1992). Pursuant to settled policy and precedents, the Secretary of Justice does not rule on issues which fall within the primary jurisdiction of another office or agency, in this case, the Oversight Committee and the DILG, over which rulings or actuations, this Department exercises no revisory authority, unless the request comes from such office or agency ( Ibid ., Nos. 16, 44 and 45, s. 1998; Nos. 28 and 50, 1997; and No. 47, s. 1993). cdll Very truly yours, (SGD.) JUSTICE SERAFIN R. CUEVAS Secretary