DOJ Opinion No. 157, s. 1993

DOJ OPINION NO. 157 , s. 1993 November 16, 1993 Mr. Dante B. Canlas Deputy Director General National Economic and Development Authority NEDA sa Pasig, Amber Avenue Pasig, Metro Manila Sir : This has reference to your request for legal opinion (1) as to whether or not Letter of Instructions No. 1086 has already been superseded by Executive Order No. 1073; and (2) if not, whether an Executive Order would be sufficient to amend the said LOI in the event that the Cabinet decides to lift the ban on the importation of used tires. prLL You state that there is an on-going review of the remaining regulated items under the second phase of the import liberalization program; that among these items are used tires which are banned under LOI No. 1086 issued on November 25, 1980; and that E.O. No. 1073 dated December 16, 1985, however, provides as follows: "SECTION 1. The Central Bank shall eliminate import licensing requirements prescribed under Central Bank Circular No. 1029 for all products, except for such products as may be determined by the Ministry of Trade and Industry to require continued regulation of imports, in view of production and market considerations, for a period of one year, unless otherwise extended upon the recommendation of the Ministry of Trade and Industry after consultation with private sector and other agencies concerned." "SEC. 12. The provisions of LOI 1255 as amended by LOI 1294, LOI 658-B, LOI 964 as amended by LOI 1108, LOI 389 as amended by LOI 1086, LOI 1367, P.D. 704 and other issuances inconsistent with this Executive Order are hereby repealed or amended accordingly." We answer the first query affirmatively. LOI No. 1086 is an amendatory measure to LOI No. 389. The provisions of the latter, as amended by the former, are among the provisions of various LOIs which have been repealed by Section 12 of E.O. No. 1073, whenever those provisions conflict with said E.O. Thus, the question to be resolved is whether or not the provisions of LOI 389, as amended by LOI 1086, are inconsistent with E.O. No. 1073. We believe there is such inconsistency. It is noted that while the aforesaid LOIs regulate the importation of used tires, E.O. No. 1073 mandates the Central Bank to "eliminate import licensing requirements prescribed under [its] Circular No. 1029 for all products". Included among the produce listed in said circular which were made subject to import restrictions were tires, the importation of which requires the prior approval of the inter-agency committee on used trucks and tires and the Department of Trade and Industry. Moreover, LOI No. 389 was promulgated "to develop and promote a local truck manufacturing industry together with the tire manufacturing industry" through the regulation of the entry of low - priced used trucks and tires originating from other countries (See "whereas" clauses). E.O. No. 1073, however, finds import restriction as a form of protection redundant since other protective measures have been provided by said E.O., such as the establishment of an anti-import surge mechanism and the strengthening of anti-dumping and countervailing measures. This is not to mention the setting up of an effective tariff protection system (See Sec. of Justice Op. No. 158, s. 1992). The above conclusion renders resolution of your second query academic and unnecessary. LexLib Please be advised accordingly. Very truly yours, (SGD.) FRANKLIN M. DRILON Secretary