DOJ Opinion No. 131, s. 1992

DOJ OPINION NO. 131 , s. 1992 September 30, 1992 Mr. Emmanuel C. Fernandez Assistant Secretary Office of American Affairs Department of Foreign Affairs Roxas Blvd., Pasay City Sir : This refers to the questions raised by the United States Embassy with the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding its plan to contract a US-based security agency to provide security services for the US diplomatic mission in Manila. Said queries were endorsed by your Office to this queries were endorsed by your Office to this Department "for comment and recommendation". It is your position that the aforesaid plan of the American Embassy should not be given due course since foreign equity in private security agencies is included in the negative list of the Foreign Investment Act of 1991 and in view of Section 12 thereof, which reads: prcd "No agency, instrumentality or political subdivision of the Government shall take any action in conflict with, or which will nullify the provisions of this Act, or any certificate or authority granted hereunder." This Department is constrained, much to its regret, to decline from rendering a responsive opinion on the instant matter. The issues involved require the application and/or interpretation of certain provisions of the Foreign Investments Act 1991. However, responsibility for enforcing the said statute is vested in the National Economic Development Authority, which is empowered to issue implementing rules and regulations therefor (Sec. 13). Well-established policy enjoins the Secretary of Justice from expressing his views on matters falling within the primary jurisdiction of another office or agency, unless upon request of said office or agency (Secretary of Justice Opn. Nos. 67 and 69, s.1979; No. 97, s. 1982; and No. 20, s. 1988). This practice evolved not only from practical considerations but also out of respect and deference for the competence and expertise of the office having primary jurisdiction to resolve the matter and for its familiarity with the policy repercussions of the resolution of the question involved as well as from a logical recognition of the lawful exercises of an authority conferred by law (Id., Opn. No. 160, s. 1982). Very truly yours, (SGD.) RAMON J. LIWAG Undersecretary