DOJ Opinion No. 227, s. 1989

DOJ OPINION NO. 227 , s. 1989 November 29, 1989 Mr. Leonardo A. Chua President, Central Mindanao University Musuan, Bukidnon Sir : This is in reply to your request for opinion on the correctness or legality of the action of the Department of Finance ("DOF") denying the request of the Central Mindanao University ("CMU") for the tax and duty-free entry of certain laboratory equipment donated by the Government of Denmark. It appears that the DOF's denial of the request for exemption is based on the ground that the CMU "is a government institution and is not covered by the Department of Finance Order No. 137-87 dated December 16, 1987", which insofar as pertinent reads: "Section 1.1. Educational Institution means a non-stock, non-profit corporation/association duly registered under Philippine law, and operated exclusively for educational purposes, maintained and administered by private individuals or groups , and offering formal education, issued a permit to operate by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) in accordance with existing laws and regulations." (Emphasis supplied.) and that said department order implements Section 4(3), Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution which provides: "(3) All revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit educational institutions used actually, directly, and exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt from taxes and duties. Upon the dissolution or cessation of the corporate existence of such institutions, their assets shall be disposed of in the manner provided by law." We are constrained from rendering the requested opinion. Otherwise, this Office would in effect, be re-examining the abovesaid ruling of the DOF. By settled practice and precedents, the Secretary of Justice does not have revisory authority over the official actuations of a co-equal and coordinate department of government (Secretary of Justice Opns. No. 66, s. 1972; No. 99, s. 1978; and No. 204, s. 1989). What is more, the resolution of the issue of law involved herein would inevitably involve a determination of whether the DOF issuance is in accord with the constitutional provision abovequoted. Precedents forbid this Office from passing upon the legal propriety of administrative circulars and issuances of another office or agency ( Id ., No. 203, 1961; No. 22, s. 1977; Nos. 9 and 11, s. 1987 and No. 168, s. 1988). It is suggested that you seek from the DOF a reconsideration of the questioned ruling. Very truly yours, (SGD.) SEDFREY A. ORDOEZ Secretary of Justice