DOJ Opinion No. 268, s. 1982

DOJ OPINION NO. 268 , s. 1982 December 1, 1982 The President Eulogio "Amang" Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology Manila Sir : This refers to your request for opinion regarding the effect of Section 37 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 232, otherwise known as the Education Act of 1982, on Section 6 of Republic Act No. 4072 as last amended by Presidential Decree No. 1524. Specifically, you pose the following queries: "1st Query: Will Section 37 on Special Education Fund of Batas Pambansa Blg. 232 disturb Section 7 of R.A. 6595 and Section 2 of P.D. 1524 both authorizing the Eulogio 'Amang' Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology [EARIST] to receive a share of 15% of the funds raised for the City of Manila under R.A. 5447, as amended? "2nd Query: If the answer to the preceding query is in the affirmative then how shall EARIST be benefited by R.A. No. 5447? "3rd Query: If EARIST is entitled to receive some amount from the above stated Special Education Funds, would it be remitted to EARIST by the City Government for the EARIST Board of Trustees to appropriate based on urgent needs of the EARIST without the need of the City School Board to approve it?" LexLib You cite two opinions (No. 81, s. 1976 and No. 159, s. 1980) of the Minister of Justice in which it was ruled that the EARIST is entitled to a share of 15% of the entire one percent additional realty tax collected by the City Government of Manila accruing to the Special Education Funds. You also state that "the operation and maintenance of the secondary department, teacher-education department, arts and sciences department, evening vocational department, business education department and graduate education department of EARIST are financed by the City Government of Manila." cdll I We answer the first query in the affirmative, subject to the extended discussion hereinafter set forth. Section 37, D.P. Blg. 232, aforecited, provides insofar as is pertinent: "SEC. 37. Special Education Fund . The proceeds of the Special Education Fund accruing to local governments shall be used exclusively for the purposes enumerated in Section 1 of Republic Act No. 5447 , and in accordance with rules and regulation issued by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports and the Ministry of the Budget. Said proceeds shall be considered as local fund and shall be subject to Presidential Decree No. 477, Presidential Decree No. 1375 and other applicable local budget laws and regulations ." (Emphasis supplied) On the other hand, Section 6 of R.A. No. 4072 as last amended by P.D. No. 1524 (providing for the operation of the EARIST) reads insofar as is pertinent: "SEC. 6. The operation and maintenance of the science and arts department, vocational-technical teacher education department, the graduate education department, the graduate education department, including the day land evening vocational school departments, but excluding the science High School Department, technical education department and technology department shall be financed by the Government of the City of Manila. "In addition to funds obtained from other sources, at least fifteen percent of the funds raised for the City of Manila under Republic Act. No. 5447, as amended, shall be appropriated for the said departments of the Institute . "The present teachers and other personnel of the Institute shall continue to serve in the same capacity." (Emphasis supplied) Pursuant to the foregoing provision of P.D. No. 1524, the EARIST is entitled to at least a fifteen percent (15%) share in the Special Education Fund accruing to the City Government of Manila, said amount to be spent for the maintenance and operation of the EARIST departments aforecited in the same provision (Sec. 6, RA 4072 as amended by P.D. 1524). But, with the enactment of B.P. Blg. 232, a limitation on the purpose/s for which the Special Education Fund may be spent has been provided, i.e., that the proceeds of the said Fund accruing to local governments (which includes the Government of the City of Manila) shall be used exclusively for the purposes specified in Section 1 of R.A.. No. 5447. In other words, the allocation pertaining to EARIST from the Special Education Fund as authorized in Section 6 of R.A. No. 4072, as last amended by P.D. No. 1524, may only be spent "exclusively" for any of the purposes enumerated in Section 1 of R.A. No. 5447. LexLib These purposes are: (1) the organization and operation of extension classes needed to accommodate all children of school age desiring to enter Grade I; (2) the construction and repair of elementary school buildings, acquisition of sites, and the construction and repair of workshops and similar buildings and accessories thereof to house laboratory, technical and similar equipment and apparatus needed by public schools offering practical arts, home economics and vocational courses, giving priority to elementary schools on the basis of the actual needs and total requirements of the country, to be undertaken by negotiated contract by the Parents-Teachers Association or by the barrio councils concerned under the supervision and direction of the Bureau of Public Works; (3) the payment and adjustment of salaries of public school teachers under R.A. 5168 and all the benefits in their favor under R.A. 4670; (4) the preparation, printing and/or purchase of textbooks, teachers' guides, forms and pamphlets, approved in accordance with existing laws to be used in the public schools; (5) the purchase and/or improvement, repair and refurbishing of machinery, laboratory, technical and similar equipment and apparatus, including spare parts needed by the Bureau of Vocational Education and secondary schools offering vocational courses; (6) the establishment of a printing plant to be used exclusively for the printing needs of the Department of Education and the improvement of regional printing plants in the vocational schools (7) the purchase of teaching materials and the simple laboratory devices for elementary and secondary classes: (8) the implementation of the existing program for citizenship development in barrio high schools, folk schools and adult education classes; (9) the undertaking of education research, including that of the Board of National Educational (10) the granting of government scholarships to poor but deserving students under R.A. 4090; and (11) the promotion of physical education, such as athletic meets. It thus appears that there is contrariety between the two subject enactments vis-a-vis the purposes for which the Special Education Fund may be spent. LexLib It is the settled rule that when a subsequent enactment covering a field of operation coterminous with a prior status cannot by any reasonable construction be given effect while the prior law remains in operative existence, because of irreconcilable conflict between the two acts, the latest legislative expression prevails, and the prior law yields to the extent of the conflict. (Lietz v. Fleming, 264 F2d 311; Gardner v. The Danzler, 281 F2d 719, Berry v. Gordon, 376 SW2d, State v. Jones, 412 SW2d 284). Accordingly, inasmuch as Section 37 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 232 is the latest expression of the legislative will, it should prevail over Section 6 of R.A. No. 4072, as last amended by P.D. No. 1524 which should yield to the extent of the conflict that shall arise insofar as the purpose of the expenditures of the Special Education Fund is concerned. II Regarding the second query, it is our view that notwithstanding the modification of the provisions of Section 6 of R.A. No. 4072, as last amended by P.D. No. 1524, to the extent as provided in Section 37 of B.P. Blg. 232 and as hereinbefore discussed, the EARIST shall continue to be entitled to at least 15% of the funds raised for the City of Manila under R.A. No. 5447; and that the procedure or manner of availment of said funds shall now be as provided in Presidential Decrees No. 477 and No. 1375 and other applicable Local budget laws and regulations as mandated by B.P. Blg. 232. LexLib Section 37 of D.P. Blg. 232, provides that the proceeds of the Special Education Fund shall be considered as local funds and shall be subject to Presidential Decrees No. 477 (the Decree on Local Fiscal Administration) and No. 1375, (the Decree transferring to the Budget Commission the functions of local government budget administrations) and other local budget laws and regulations. The clear import of this provision is to place the administration of the Special Education Fund accruing to local governments pursuant to R.A. No. 5447 in the local governments concerned. And in accordance with P.D. No. 477 the budgeting, expenditure, disbursements and accounting of the special education fund accruing to local governments, which is categorized as local fund, should be in accordance with the procedures outlined in said decree (P.D. 477). III In consonance with the extended discussion hereinbelow set forth, our answer to the third query is that the statement of the proposed expenditure of EARIST from its share in the Special Education Fund need not be approved by the School Board of the City of Manila. As already stated, the budgeting or appropriation of the share of EARIST from the Special Education Fund shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of P.D. No. 477, supra , which provides, inter alia , that "each head of office shall submit a statement of the proposed expenditures recommended by him for his office to the local chief executive." Applying this section to the instant problem, the President of EARIST may be considered the "head of office" whose responsibility is to submit the statement of the proposed expenditures ( which statement must have been previously approved by the EARIST Board of Trustees , as required in the EARIST Charter [See Sec. 7-C [a] of R.A. No. 4072, as inserted by Sec. 3 of P.D. No. 1524]) to the Mayor of the City of Manila as the "local chief executive". Where upon pursuant to P.D. No. 824 (the Decree creating the Metropolitan Manila and the Metropolitan Manila Commission). the city Mayor shall include the same in the budget for the ensuing fiscal year and submit said budget to the Metro Manila Commission for approval . (Section 4 [47], in relation to the second proviso of the fourth paragraph of Section 9). It is thus clear that under this procedure the statement of the proposed expenditures of the EARIST from its share in the Special Education Fund need not be approved by the School Board of the City of Manila. LLpr WHEREFORE, we reiterate our conclusions herein before mentioned. Very truly yours, (SGD.) RICARDO C. PUNO Minister of Justice