DOJ Opinion No. 127, s. 1998

DOJ OPINION NO. 127 , s. 1998 October 28, 1998 Ma. Eleanor F. Dela Cruz Assistant Secretary Department of Finance Roxas Blvd. cor. Vito Cruz St. Manila M a d a m : In a letter dated October 14, 1998, this Department is requested to render an opinion on "whether or not imported right-hand vehicles which arrived after the effectivity of R.A. 8506 on 21 February 1998 may be released under the following conditions, to wit: 1. Full payment of customs duties, taxes, fees and penalties, if any; 2. Conversion kits are included in the imported vehicles; 3. Posting of a bond issued by a reputable bonding company, i.e. the GSIS (Government Service Insurance System), equivalent to 200% of the value of the vehicle conditioned upon fulfillment of the following requisites: i. the non-use and non-operation of the vehicles prior to the conversion and registration; ii. the conversion of the vehicles from right-hand drive in Customs Bonded Warehouse under the supervision of the BOC (Bureau of Customs), and release from the BOC custody for registration only upon inspection and confirmation by the SGS (Societe Generale de Surveillance) issuance of Clean Report of Findings (CRF)." The above-mentioned conditions, it is said, are "premised on the interpretation that the law (R.A. No. 8506) bans the use of right-hand vehicles and not its ( sic ) importation." The query, it appears, stemmed from the "refusal" of the SGS to issue, because of the said law, the corresponding CRF for the several used right-hand motor vehicles that were allowed to enter the country after February 21, 1998 and were issued Import Advice Notes. The provision of Republic Act No. 8506, otherwise known as "An Act Banning the Registration and Operation of Vehicles with Right-hand Steering Wheel in any Private or Public Street, Road or Highway, Providing Penalties Therefor, and for Other Purposes", pertinent to the query expressly provides that: "SECTION 1. It shall be unlawful for any person to import, cause the importation of, register, cause the registration of, use, or operate any vehicle with its steering wheel right-hand side thereof in any highway, street or road, whether private or public or of the national or local government except such vehicles that are acknowledged as vintage automobiles, manufactured before 1960, in showroom condition, and/or are to be utilized exclusively for officially and legally sanctioned motor sports events, and off-road purpose vehicles." (R.A. No. 8506) The submitted "background papers" tend to show that the Department of Finance, particularly the Bureau of Customs, is of the view that the importation of right-hand drive motor vehicles is not prohibited by law. In a Memorandum for the Director, Custom Legal Service, Assistant Director Juan N. Tan contends that "[i]t is of public knowledge that R.A. No. 8506 was issued solely to prevent the operation of the vehicles with right-hand steering wheel in any private or public street, road or highway because said operation was found to be hazardous to life and property. This objective is attained by merely banning the registration and operation of these vehicles , without need of banning their importation ". (Emphasis supplied) Relying upon the provision of the Constitution which requires that any bill passed by Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be express in the title thereof (Sec. 26, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution), it is also the Bureau's view that the title of R.A. No. 8506 clearly refers only to registration and operation of right-hand drive vehicles but not their importation. It is a well-settled rule in statutory construction that where a statute is susceptible of several interpretations or where there is ambiguity in its language, there is no better means of ascertaining the will and intention of the legislature than that which is afforded by the history of the statute (Oliva vs. Lamadrid, 21 SCRA 737). llcd R.A. No. 8506 appears to be a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 1568 entitled " An Act Banning the Importation and Use of Vehicles with Right-Hand Steering Wheel in Any Private or Public Street , Road or Highway , Providing Penalties Therefore and Other Purposes '' and House Bill No. 129 entitled " An Act Prohibiting the Registration and Operation of Right-Hand Drive Motor Vehicles and For Other Purposes ". Worth noting is Section 2 of Senate Bill No. 1568 which provides that: "The importation of right-hand side steering wheeled vehicle is likewise declared unlawful and any attempt to import or cause the importation thereof shall be subject to the penalty hereinafter imposed together with confiscation of the same or any knock-down parts thereof except and unless it falls under any of the exception enumerated in the previous section." Although House Bill 129 authorizes the importation of right-hand drive (RHD) motor vehicles, Senate Bill 1568 negated the same when it prohibited the importation of the said vehicles as shown in the aforequoted provision. The subsequent inclusion of the provision of S.B. No. 1568 in R.A. No. 8506 unequivocably reveals the clear intent of the framers of R.A. No. 8506 not only to ban the registration and operation of said vehicles but also to prohibit the importation thereof. Moreover, while the constitutional requirements on the subject and title of bills aim to apprise the legislators of the object, nature and scope of the provisions of the bill, and to prevent the enactment into law of matters which have not received the notice, action and study of the legislators (Libarnes vs. Executive Secretary, 9 SCRA 261), they should not, however, be given a technical interpretation nor should they be narrowly construed as to cripple or impede the power of legislation (Cordero vs. Cabatuando, 6 SCRA 418); rather, they should be liberally construed (Alalayan vs. National Power Corporation, 24 SCRA 172). Thus, it has been ruled that there is sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirements if the title is comprehensive enough reasonably to include the general object which a statute seeks to effect, without expressing each and every end and means necessary or convenient for accomplishing the object (id., at pp. 179-180). The requirement is satisfied if all the parts of the law are related, and are germane to the subject matter expressed in the title, or so long as they are not inconsistent with or foreign to the general subject. Stated differently, it is a valid title where it indicates in broad but clear terms the nature, scope and consequences of the law and its operations (see also, People vs. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382, 415). Applied to the instant case, this Department is of the opinion that the title of R.A. No. 8506 has satisfactorily complied with the constitutional requirements on title since the prohibition on importation of right-hand vehicle is germane and related to and is not inconsistent with or foreign to the general subject of the law. Anent the prospective application of the law, Article 4, of the New Civil Code is clear and categorical, to wit: "ARTICLE 4. Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided." (R.A. No. 386, as amended) It is clear from the said provision of law that in order that a law may have retroactive effect it is necessary that an express provision to this effect be made in the law, otherwise nothing should be understood which is not embodied in the law. The rationale is because being a rule established to guide our actions with no binding effect until it is enacted, it can have no application to past times but only to future time, hence, of no retroactive effect, unless the legislators may have formally given that effect to some legal provisions (Lopez and Lopez vs. Crow, 40 Phil. 997). Thus, as held in Nilo vs. Court of Appeals, 128 SCRA 519, quoting Ancajas vs. Jakosalem, 24 Phil. 220: "It is rule of statutory construction that all statutes are to be construed as having only a prospective operation unless the purpose and intention of the Legislature to give them a retrospective effect is expressly declared or is necessarily implied from the language used. In every case of doubt, the doubt must be solved against the retrospective effect. The cases supporting this rule are almost without number. xxx xxx xxx In the case of Leete v. St. Louis State Bank (115 Mo., 184), it was held that In construing statutes in regard to whether their action is to be prospective or retrospective, all the adjudicated cases and all the text-writers with unbroken uniformity unite in declaring 'that they are to operate prospectively and not otherwise unless the intent that they are to operate in such an unusual way, to wit, retrospectively, is manifested on the face of the statute in a manner altogether free from ambiguity.' 'The case of Berdan v. Van Riper (16 N.J.L.; 7) holds that where a statute is susceptible of construction as both prospective and retrospective, the former construction will be adopted, but especially if the retrospective operation will work injustice to anyone . . .'" (at p. 525; see also, Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration vs. Cipriano, 55 SCRA 533). prcd It is evident that the subject law contains no express words giving it a retrospective or retroactive effect, nor is there anything found therein which indicates an intention to give it such an effect. By clear intendment, its effect is, therefore, prospective. Likewise, since "laws (take) effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided" (E.O. No. 200, s. 1987, amending Art. 2, NCC, as amended), and R.A. No. 8506 states that the "Act shall take effect immediately after its complete publication in the Official Gazette, or in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation" (Sec. 3, R.A. No. 8506), it appears clear that the law became effective on February 22, 1998 (not on February 21, 1998), or the day after its complete publication in the Manila Times and Malaya, two national newspapers of general circulation (see Taada vs. Tuvera, 146 SCRA 446)." Consequently, RHD buses imported and loaded at the port of origin before February 22, 1998, cannot be deemed to be covered by the provisions of R.A. No. 8506 which makes it unlawful and punishable with prision correccional in its medium period and a fine of P50,000 for any person to, among others, import or cause the importation of vehicles with right-hand steering wheel (Secs. 1 and 2, R.A. No. 8506) notwithstanding the fact that they arrived in the country after the law's effectivity. cdlex One cannot be faulted for committing an act which is not prohibited and punishable when done. However, given the prohibition against the use and registration of right-hand drive motor vehicles, these motor vehicles should be released only upon compliance of the aforesaid conditions adopted by the DOF. However, as to those RHD buses loaded for shipment after February 22, 1998, suffice it to say that "(i)gnorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith" (Art. 3, New Civil Code). Please be guided accordingly. Very truly yours, (SGD.) JUSTICE SERAFIN R. CUEVAS Secretary