DOJ Opinion No. 237, s. 1988

DOJ OPINION NO. 237 , s. 1988 November 28, 1988 Com. Bienvenido A. Tan, Jr. Bureau of Internal Revenue Quezon City Sir : This has reference to your request for opinion on whether or not Executive Order No. 127 (The Reorganization Act of the [Department] of Finance empowers the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau ("EIIB") to perform certain function conferred by the National Internal Revenue Code upon the Bureau of Internal Revenue ("BIR"), particularly, the examination and investigation of books of accounts and other accounting records of taxpayers, the issuance of compulsory process to compel the production of their books of accounts and other accounting records, and the inventory-taking of goods for purposes of determining tax liabilities. It appears that the Johannesburg Packaging Corporation is under investigation by the EIIB for having allegedly channeled to the local market certain products intended for re-exportation; that the said corporation refused to EIIB investigation access to its records and to conduct an inventory of its stocks on the ground that it has already secured clearances from the Bureau of Customs and to the BIR; that the EIIB Commissioner wrote the subject corporation that it is resorting to the use of subpoena in its capacity as "the eyes, ears and graft buster of the Department of Finance in proceeding against venalities perpetrated and falling within the sphere of authority of Section 26, Executive Order 127" and that it will "proceed with its investigation unless otherwise restrained the Secretary of Finance, the courts to others higher authorities." You now express your apprehension that "Section 269 of the Tax Code which protects the confidentiality of a taxpayers business, income, estate etc., by prohibiting and penalizing unlawful divulgence thereof by internal revenue officers, would be rendered nugatory since EIIB agents, obviously, do not fall within the ambit of the prohibition. We are constrained, with regret, to decline rendition for the requested opinion for the reason that the instant matter falls within the former jurisdiction of the Department of Finance, not ours because the agencies involved are under the supervision and control, but also because it involves an interpretation of E.O., No. 127, the implementation of which is its responsibility (Sec. 65). By settled practice and established policy, the Secretary of Justice refrains from giving his opinion on matters which pertain to the primary jurisdiction of another office or agency, unless upon its request (Opns. Secretary of justice No. 194, s. 1976; No. 97, s. 1982 Nos. 18 and 139, s. 1986 and No. 98, s. 1988). This is especially true in this case where the agency involved is a co-equal and coordinate department of government. Moreover, we are concerned that any rulings we shall render hereon would have no practical value. It bears stress that the opinions of this Department are merely advisory in nature and that the two of the agencies involved herein, namely, the Department of Finance and the EIIB, may choose to ignore such ruling, since they have not indicated any intention to have this Department resolve the resolve the issue posed with us. Prudence dictates that in such situations this Department Should withhold its opinion on the matter involved. prcd Very truly yours, (SGD.) SEDFREY A. ORDOEZ Secretary of Justice