DOJ Opinion No. 130, s. 1983

DOJ OPINION NO. 130 , s. 1983 2nd Indorsement August 17, 1983 Respectfully returned to the Governor, Metropolitan Manila Commission, Quezon City, the within request for opinion relative to the question as to which city Manila or Pasay has "jurisdiction over the Philippine Plaza Hotel in the Cultural Center Complex for taxation purpose" and "for the purpose of crimes committed in said place". LibLex It appears that the query was prompted by a commentary of Mr. Max Buan, Jr. regarding the dispute between Manila and Pasay City "over which has jurisdiction over the Philippine Plaza Hotel in the Cultural Center Complex for taxation purpose" and over criminal cases occurring therein (see Peoples' Journal, March 5, 1983, p. 3). The Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) complex at present occupies a land area comprising adjoining portions of land of the public domain situated in the District of Malate in the City of Manila and in Pasay City (see Proclamation No. 316 dated December 15, 1967). It is the general rule that a municipal corporation has jurisdiction over the territory embraced within its corporate limits (McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, 1966 Ed., Vol. 2, p. 282) and so, insofar as the CCP complex area is concerned, jurisdiction over the said area may be deemed to correspondingly pertain to the City of Manila as to that portion lying within its territorial boundaries, and to Pasay City as to that portion embraced within its corporate limits. Thus, as we see it, the proper resolution of the question as to which city Manila of Pasay City has jurisdiction over the Philippine Plaza Hotel for taxation purposes and over the crimes committed therein would necessarily involve a determination of the territorial boundaries of the two cities, which is a question of fact that this Ministry does not have the Official competence to resolve. Be that as it may, we are giving hereunder some relevant observations on the query posed. 1. The CCP is a non-municipal public corporation, (Section 3, P.D. No. 15) It is created for a public purpose which is to promote, enhance and develop Philippine culture in implementation of the constitutional mandate that arts and letters shall be under the patronage of the State. It shall enjoy autonomy of policy and operation but it may seek the assistance and cooperation of various government offices in the pursuit of its objectives, (Section 3, id .) The fact, however, that it is created as a non-municipal public corporation, which means that it is not a separate local political unit, clearly implies that it has not been withdrawn from the political jurisdiction of the local government/s within whose corporate limits the CCP complex is located and will be subject to its/their taxing power, if it is subject to local taxation. In Opinion No. 188, series of 1982, this Ministry in ruling upon the issue of jurisdiction over reclaimed areas adjacent to the municipal boundaries of local governments stated that political jurisdiction over the said areas may be deemed vested in the respective local governments having jurisdiction over the territory adjoining the reclaimed portions. To rule otherwise would be to create the incongruous situation where a portion of the territory of the state is left without any political identity. In the case of the CCP complex, it could not have been the legislative intent to remove the said complex from the political jurisdiction of either Manila or Pasay City, otherwise, an "incongruous situation" would result where the CCP complex, which is a portion of the Philippine territory, would be "left without any political identity". LexLib 2. The CCP enjoys exemption "from all forms of taxation" (Section 13, P.D. No. 15), except income tax on its "profit making business ventures such as the hotel" (Section 6, P.D. No. 1444, amending Section 13, P.D. No. 15). The tax exemption privilege on its business ventures was, however, withdrawn by P.D. No. 1815, Section 1 of which provides as follows: "SECTION 1. Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 15, as last amended by Presidential Decree No. 1444 is hereby further amended to read as follows: "SEC. 13. Tax Exemption . The provisions of Section 1205 of the Tariff and Customs Code, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 34 dated October 28, 1972, Section 204 of the Tax Code of 1977, as amended, and other existing laws notwithstanding, the Center shall be exempt from all forms of taxation whatever including withholding taxes on fees paid to foreign artists passed on to the Center by contract, and from duties and all other imposts on any equipment, articles, goods, or services that it may import from abroad, which may be reasonably necessary for use in or part of its operations. This exemption shall not apply to business ventures of the Center ". (Emphasis supplied) Subsequently, in order to assist the cultural projects of the CCP which is a commitment of the government and as the CCP "requires further subsidy from the government commensurate to the tax exemption enjoyed under P.D. No. 1444 as repealed by P.D. No. 1815", the President issued P.D. No. 1825 on January 16, 1981, which now provides: "SECTION 1. All taxes, except income tax, imposed on the business operations of the Cultural Center of the Philippines shall, in lieu of being paid directly to the Bureau of Internal Revenue be remitted directly to the Cultural Center of the Philippines; such fund to be used by the Center for its cultural activities. As such, these taxes shall be part of the expenses of its business operations and shall not in any way place the business operations of the Center such as the hotel, at an undue advantage over the other hotels which are required by law to pay these taxes". Said section provides that instead of being paid directly to the Bureau of Internal Revenue, all taxes, except income tax, imposed on the business operations of the CCP shall be remitted directly to the CCP as subsidy from the Government to be used by the CCP for its cultural activities. The intent is clear to withhold from the Philippine Plaza Hotel any undue advantage over other hotels. Judging also from its context, this arrangement would appear to cover only national taxes which are collectible by the Bureau of Internal Revenue and which are given back to the CCP in the form of government subsidy. 3. Crimes falling within the jurisdiction of the City Court committed within the Philippine Plaza Hotel or within the CCP complex for that matter, are cognizable by the respective courts of Manila and Pasay City depending on the exact situs of the commission of the offense. It is a fundamental principle that the venue of a criminal action is the place where the crime was committed or where any of its essential elements took place, (Beltran vs. Ramos, 96 Phil. 149 [1954]; Hernandez vs. Albano, 19 SCRA 95 [1967]). In the remote possibility, however, that the Philippine Plaza Hotel straddles both cities, as in the case of the Manila International Airport (MIA) which sprawls over the territories of Paraaque and Pasay City, the same solution adopted to resolve the question of venue of actions in the MIA in the meantime that the question of jurisdiction over the MIA remains unsettled, may be considered. Thus, in the MIA case, representation was made with the Supreme Court for the issuance by said court of an administrative order designating the venue for all criminal and civil cases arising from the MIA. It was there suggested that the City Court of Pasay City be designated to take cognizance of such cases in view of the proximity of said court to the MIA. For its part, this Ministry designated the City Fiscal of Pasay City and his assistants to investigate all criminal offenses committed within the MIA. LexLib 4. As regards the maintenance of peace and order within the CCP complex, both Manila and Pasay City are deemed responsible for the peace and order situation within their respective areas of jurisdiction. It has been held that it is the plain duty of a municipality to furnish and provide reasonable, proper and adequate police protection to all persons within its territory (Malitt V. Township of Millburn, 168 A 2d 864) and that the police department of a city is charged with the duty of protecting the lives and property of all persons therein, irrespective of their place of residence and with enforcing all state laws, as well as city ordinances (State V. Sherill, 53 NE 2d 501). However, in view of the integration of the local police forces in Metro Manila (P.D. No. 421), there should be no jurisdictional problem in the enforcement of law and order within the CCP complex since said duty now properly devolves upon the Metropolitan Police Force under the direction and control of the Commanding General of the PC METROCOM, (Sections 2 & 3, P.D. No. 421). (SGD.) RICARDO C. PUNO Minister of Justice