DOJ Opinion No. 158, s. 1992

DOJ OPINION NO. 158 , s. 1992 November 9, 1992 Secretary Cielito F. Habito National Economic and Development Authority NEDA sa Pasig, Amber Avenue Pasig, Metro Manila Sir : This has reference to your request for legal opinion as to whether or not the import restrictions provided in Presidential Decree No. 1593 has been amended by Executive Order No. 1073. The pertinent provision of the laws abovementioned read: "Section 1. The Central Bank shall eliminate the 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 by the Ministry of Trade and Industry after consultation with the private sector and other agencies concerned." (E.O. No. 1073; Italics supplied) "The importation of cattle (breeder and/or slaughter) and frozen beef (special choice cuts and/or briskets, trimmings, and other low-cost manufacturing grade beef) shall be in accordance with the following specific guidelines and such guidelines as may be issued by the Bureau of Animal Industry through the Ministry of Agriculture as approved by the President . . .". (Sec 1, P.D. No. 1593) "All importation of live cattle for breeding and/or slaughter shall have prior approval of the Minister of Agriculture, upon recommendation of the Director of the Bureau of Animal Industry, attesting to the quality and breed of the cattle to be brought in, the need for any timeliness of such importation, the cost thereof, the benefits to be derived therefrom and the contributions such importations can make to the intended overall economic and social objectives." (Sec. 2, P.D. No. 1593) In relation to the abovequoted section of E.O. No. 1073, we have been informed that the Central Bank and the Tariff Commission differ as to what is being referred to by the one-year period mentioned therein. The latter says that such period refers to the duration of the lifting of the import licensing requirements, while the former contends that it refers to the products expected from such lifting. Thus, opinion is likewise sought on this issue. Regarding the first query, it is noted that P.D. No. 1593 regulates the importation of cattle, whether for breeding or for slaughter, and its meat products. In line with this government policy, the Central Bank issued Circular No. 1029 which, inter alia , enumerated the products/commodities the importation of which were being regulated and designated the governmental agency responsible for issuing the clearance/permit for their importation. Among such products/commodities were "[a]nimals, animal effects, such animal products, meat and meat products" and the Bureau of Animal Industry was named as regulatory agency (Sec. 8[7]). In 1986, however, E.O. No. 1073 was promulgated mandating the Central Bank to "eliminate the import licensing requirements prescribed under [the abovesaid circular] for all products". Said E.O. was promulgated after the lawmaker found that "the lifting of redundant import licensing [was] an important component in the economic recovery program" (1st, "whereas" clause). It is pertinent to note that E.O. No. 1075 was issued by then President Marcos pursuant to his delegated power to legislate under Section 401 of P.D. No. 1464 and under P.D. No. 1416, as amended. E.O. No. 1073 definitely and unqualifiedly states that "Central Bank shall eliminate import licensing requirements" "for all products". There is no safer nor better settled canon of interpretation than that when the language is clear and unambiguous, it must be held to mean what it plainly expresses (IBAA Employees' Union vs. Inciong, 132 SCRA 663). Moreover, it bears stress that P.D. No. 1593 is an amendatory issuance to P.D. No. 1297. The latter was promulgated to provide legal protection to domestic cattle and beef-processing industries from foreign competition. E.O. No. 1073, however, finds such form of protection redundant since other measures of protection have been provided by said E.O., such as the establishment of an anti-import surge mechanism and the strengthening of anti-dumping measures. This is not to mention the setting-up of an effective tariff protection system. prcd Based thereon, it is submitted that there are sufficient indications of the legislative intent for E.O. No. 1073 to supersede P.D. No. 1297, as amended by P.D. No. 1593. Such intent is made more manifest by said E.O. 's repealing clause which, covers, among others, "other issuance inconsistent with this Executive Order" (Sec. 12). Pertinent is the holding that where there are two statutes on the same subject, passed at different dates, and it is plain from the framework and substance of the last that it was intended to cover the whole subject, the later one is deemed to be a legislative declaration that whatever is embraced in it shall prevail in case of conflict (In re adoption of Guzman, 73 Phil. 51). Anent the question as to what is being referred to by the phrase "for a period of one year" in the above-quoted provision of E.O. No. 1073, we are inclined to sustain the view of the Central Bank that the aforesaid phrase does not refer to the duration of the authority of the said bank to lift the import licensing requirements, but to the time during which it may not lift such requirements. It is noted that the phrase in question immediately follows the clause, "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". Well-settled is the rule in statutory construction that qualifying words and phrases, where no contrary intention appears, refer solely to the last phrase or clause that can be made an antecedent without impairing the meaning of the sentence (Pangilinan vs. Alvendia, 101 Phil. 794; Florentino vs. Phil. National Bank, 98 Phil. 959). The qualifying effect of the phrase "for a period of one year" should be confined to its immediate antecedent since the latter is separated by a comma from the other antecedent (see Florentino vs. Phil. National Bank, supra ). In view of the foregoing, this Department is of the opinion 1. that P.D. No. 1297, as amended by P. D. No. 1593, has been superseded by E.O. No. 1073; and 2. that the one-year period mentioned in Section 1 of E.O. No. 1073 refers to the duration in which the Central Bank may not lift the import licensing requirements for certain products. llcd Please be advised accordingly. Very truly yours, (SGD.) FRANKLIN M. DRILON Secretary