DOJ Opinion No. 158, s. 1981

DOJ OPINION NO. 158 , s. 1981 October 26, 1981 The Governor Central Bank of the Philippines Manila Sir : This has reference to your request for "opinion as to whether or not the Tourist Duty Free Shops, Inc. may be allowed to import coffee products, taking into consideration the provisions of Republic Act No. 2712 (An Act To Prohibit The Importation of Coffee)". LLpr Subject to the extended discussion hereunder, we answer your query in the negative. No such importation can be justified whether under the provisions of RA 2712 on of Presidential Decree No. 1193, authorizing the Tourist Duty Free Shops, Inc. to establish and operate duty and tax free stores and to pay a franchise tax in lieu of all other taxes. You state that the abovesaid corporation has applied with the Central Bank "for authority to import sixty (60) cases of "Assorted Ground, Instant/Francais Mocha Coffee valued at US $4,029,.65" upon the contention that RA 2712 "is not applicable to their case since these coffee products are not meant to be sold to local residents but . . . to put going transients" and that "the same law prohibits only the importation of coffee which will be resold in the local market". Section 1 of the subject Republic Acts read: "SECTION 1. The importation of roasted coffee beans, roasted ground coffee, instant or soluble coffee in powder form, extract or concentrate in liquid form or finished coffee products in any form, raw coffee beans of the robusta, excelsa, and liberica varieties, is hereby prohibited; Provided, however , That the importation of raw coffee beans of the arabica variety shall be gradually reduced as follows: starting with and during the year nineteen hundred and sixty, only seventy five per cent of the nineteen hundred and fifty-nine foreign exchange allocation of bona fide and legitimate coffee roasters shall be allowed; on the second year (nineteen hundred and sixty-one), fifty per cent; on the third year (nineteen hundred and sixty-two), twenty five percent; on the fourth year (nineteen hundred and sixty-three), ten per cent; and on the fifth year (nineteen hundred and sixty-four), complete banning: Provided, further , That in case of shortage of locally produced arabica coffee, the President of the Philippines, upon recommendation of Secretary of Agriculture and National Resources and the Chairman of National Economic Council, may authorize the importation of the necessary quantity of raw arabica coffee beans to supplement the shortage." It is clear that by virtue of the foregoing provision coffee, in raw or in finished form, may not, as of the date of effectivity of RA 2712 on June 18, 1960, be imported into the Philippines except in two cases only, to wit: (1) during the years from 1960 to 1963, when raw coffee beans of the arabica variety could be imported in gradually reduced quantities (so that in 1964 the total ban on importation of such variety became operative); (2) where there a shortage of the abovesaid variety, in which case the President may authorize its importation to supplement such shortage. Inasmuch as the aforequoted provision mentions only two exceptions to the ban on the importation of coffee, no other exception may be allowed. Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius . "Where the terms of a statute are clear and unambiguous, exceptions not made by the legislature cannot be read into the act." (Martin, Statutory Construction, 5th Ed. pp. 158-159 citing Wachendorf vs. Shaver, 78 NE 2d 370)" It is well settled that an exception in a statute amounts to an affirmation of the application of its provisions to all others not excepted and excluded all other exceptions. (Gonzaga, Statutory Construction, p. 251 citing Black) It is true that the P.D. No. 1193 which is the source of the authority of the Tourist Duty Free Shops, Inc. to make tax free and duty free importations was enacted after RA 2712 and therefore may be deemed to be the latest expression of the legislative will on the matter. However, we have perused closely the provisions of the said decree and we are unable to find anything therein which provides for, or may be construed as, a qualification of or an exception to the importation ban imposed by RA 2712. Neither may it be argued that PD 1193 may be construed as having impliedly qualified the ban in RA 2712, Such construction is without basis not only because of the fundamental rule that amendments by implication are not favored in the interpretation of statutes (Quimsing vs. Lachico, 2 SCRA 182), but also because of the fact that the privilege given to the abovesaid corporation by PD 1193 is that of importing, free from customs, duties and charges, importable goods or merchandise which are subject to such duties or charges under our customs laws, but certainly not privilege of importing goods the importation of which are prohibited by law. Stated otherwise, PD 1193 exempts the corporation from the customs duties and charges, not from the prohibition to import banned goods. Moreover, the explanatory note of House Bill No. 3996 (which is the precursor of RA 2712) states that the purpose of said bill is to give a double advantage to the country namely "first, we will save dollars which are badly needed by our economy; and secondly, we will be protecting of an old industry [i.e. coffee] which is striving hard to regain its rightful place in our national economy". (Congressional Record, House of Representatives, Fourth Congress, Vol. III, Part II, p. 2336) It is not difficult to see that to allow the requested importation would be to defeat the above said objectives of RA 2712. It is significant to note in this connection that duty free shops cater not only to outgoing transients but also to the beverage requirements of tourist oriented hotels and restaurants (See Sec. 9 PD 1193) and these establishments are proliferating. At any rate, locally manufactured coffee products are already extensively exported worldwide and so we are not convinced that we have to import foreign brands to satisfy the needs of transients in the country. In fine, if there is really a need for the subject importations, the remedy lies not in the implementation of existing legislation but in legislative action towards an amendment thereof. prLL WHEREFORE, we reiterate our view that the Tourist Duty-Free Shops, Inc., does not have the authority to import foreign brand coffee. Very truly yours, (SGD.) RICARDO C. PUNO Minister of Justice