DOJ Opinion No. 177, s. 1989

DOJ OPINION NO. 177 , s. 1989 September 1, 1989 The Commissioner Bureau of Internal Revenue Quezon City Sir : This refers to your request for opinion on whether or not that Office (BIR) can comply with the subpoena duces tecum issued by the Armed Forces Anti-Graft Board directing the production of the income tax returns of certain persons named therein, without incurring liability under Section 269 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended. It appears that the Anti-Graft Board issued a subpoena duces tecum to the BIR requesting copies of Income Tax Returns of certain personalities in connection with the investigation of Lt. Gen. Antonio Sotelo by that Board; that said Board was created by an Order of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) dated May 13, 1986, in coordination with the Ministry (now Department) of National Defense and the Chief of Staff of the AFP; and that one of its specific power and authority is "to administer oaths, and issue subpoena/subpoena duces tecum requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and/or production of such books, papers, records, statement of accounts and other documents as may be material to the investigation conducted by the Commission". You contend that a subpoena duces tecum should be issued pursuant to a specific legal authority in order not to incur any liability under Section 269 of the NIRC in the disclosure of tax documents of an individual as ruled in Opinion No. 18, s. 1960 and Opinion No. 10, s. 1980 of the Secretary of Justice; and that the subpoena issued by the Anti-Graft Board was made not on the basis of any statute but on the strength of a mere Order of the PCGG. In consonance with present administrative practice as well as traditional official courtesy, this Office is constrained to refrain from rendering an opinion on the matter. Considering that the Armed Forces Anti-Graft Board was constituted by the PCGG pursuant to Executive Order Nos. 1 and 2, any inquiry on or clarification of its powers should be addressed to the PCGG. The Secretary of Justice does not pass upon question involving the legal propriety of the administrative issuance of another office or agency which is tasked with the enforcement of the law being implemented by such issuance (Sec. of Justice Op. No. 22, s. 1977; Nos. 11 and 89, s. 1987, No. 168, s. 1988). Very truly yours, (SGD.) SEDFREY A. ORDOEZ Secretary of Justice