DOJ Opinion No. 129, s. 1991

DOJ OPINION NO. 129 , s. 1991 September 6, 1991 Hon. Dionisio C. De La Serna Deputy Executive Secretary Office of the President Malacaang, Manila Sir : This has reference to your letter seeking the opinion of this Department on the legal questions arising from the request of the Pampanga Agri-Service and Marketing Cooperative, Inc. (PAMACO) for exemption from the payment of custom duties and taxes for its importation of; (a) used completely built (CBU) units for taxicab purposes; and (b) trucks for cooperatives use. The query, it appears, has been raised in view of the diverse rulings, in the interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of R.A. No. 6938, otherwise known as the "Cooperative Code of the Philippines", by the Department of Finance/Bureau of Customs (DOF/BOC) and the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA). You state that the DOF/BOC maintains the position that PAMACO is covered by Article 62 of R.A. No. 6938, and therefore, refused to allow the entry of PAMACO's importation tax-free or exempt from the payment of customs duties. Upon the other hand, CDA maintains that the subject importation by PAMACO is covered by Article 61 and therefore "not subject to any government taxes or fees imposed under the Internal Revenue Laws and other tax laws". Hence, you would like now this Department to render an opinion on the correct interpretation of Article 61 and 62 of R.A. 6938, the Opinion No. 15, s. 1991 of this Department notwithstanding. In addition, legal opinion is requested on the following related queries: prcd "1. Are cooperatives falling under Article 61 of R.A. 6938 exempt from custom duties and taxes on importation? 2. In the affirmative case, are these cooperatives bound to comply with the requirements under Article 62 of R.A. 6938 such as the submission of a certificate from the Department of Trade and Industry that the articles imported are not available locally? 3. Does Article 61 of R.A. 6938 cover only domestic transactions and does not include importation?" With regret, we are constrained from rendering an opinion thereon for reasons hereunder explained. It appears that the DOF/BOC and the CDA have both expressed their views regarding the desired exemption of PAMACO from payment of custom duties, taxes, fees and other charges with respect to its importations of various used vehicles. Completely Built-Up (CBU) units. Clearly, the action sought would necessarily require the Secretary of Justice to pass upon administrative decisions of two (2) agencies of the government on matters falling within their respective jurisdiction, which he cannot do, since such action would not only be inconsistent with established policy and precedents but most likely would involve a review of the aforestated rulings of the DOC/BOC and CDA, which, we repeat, cannot be done without assuming that the Department of Justice possesses revisory jurisdiction, not conferred upon it by law, over the acts of other departments/agencies. (Opns. Sec. of Justice Nos. 16 and 121, s. 1961; No. 239, s. 1977, No. 96, s. 1981; No. 7, s. 1987; No. 160, s. 1988 and No. 11, s. 1989). Besides, the law and precedents dictate that the Office most directly concerned and primarily charged with the law assigned to it for its implementation and enforcement should be given the opportunity to construe at first instance its own regulation, since it is better situated to translate or transcribe the intent and policy behind the law and to give proper meaning and effect to such intent and policy. (Sec. of Justice Op. No. 97, s. 1982). It is settled that the contemporaneous interpretation given by the administrative agencies to laws which they are duty bound to execute deserve great weight and respect (Pascual v. Director of Land, 10 SCRA 854; Ramos v. Court of Industrial Relations, 21 SCRA 1982). prcd Accordingly, Opinion No. 15, s. 1991 of this Department is hereby reiterated. Very truly yours, (SGD.) SILVESTRE H. BELLO III Acting Secretary