Republika ng Pilipinas
KAGAWARAN NG KAT NGAN
Department of Justice
Manila
MEMORANDUM
To : MR. LORENZ TACA
THRU : MS. IRENE DULIN
SUBJECT : DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OPINION NO. 71
s. 1995
DATE : 17 JANUARY 2018
Greetings!
This has reference to the inquiry you sent through the eFOI Portal dated
16 January 2018 requesting for a signed copy of the Department of
Justice (DOJ) Opinion No. 71s. 1995.
Attached herewith is the copy of the DOJ Opinion no. 71 s. 1995 for
your perusal.
Thank you.Republika ng Pilipinas
KAGAWARAN NG KATARUNGAN
Department of Justice
OPINION'NO, 7, S. 19.25
Taly 26, 1995
Mr. Manuel L. Morato
Chairma Acting General Manager
Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office
970 San Marcelino Street
Ermita, Manila
Sir:
This has reference to your query on whether or
not Lotto sales agents of the Philippine Charity
Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) are required by law to
secure business permits/licenses from the
municipality or city where they operate.
You state that PCSO is the principal
government agency tasked to raise and provide funds
for the health programs, medical
assistance/services and charities ‘of _ national
character; that in line with said mandate, it is
authorized by ite charter (R.A. No. 1169, as
amended) “to hold and conduct charity sweepstakes
races, lotteries and other similar activities";
that to increase ite revenue base and diversify its
sources of funds, PCSO introduced to the country
the first “On-Line Lottery System", otherwise known
as “Lotto”: that, as in the case of ordinary
sweepstakes, Lotto tickets are sold by — PCSO—
appointed sales agents through terminals installed
on. gales counters or other convenient places in
existing establishments and which are linked to the
central computer system; that this on-line lottery
system enables PCSO to appoint sales agents
nationwide and for which reason. it will need the
cooperation of the local government units (LGUs)
concerned to extend support to facilitate the
establishment of the system in their respective
localities. }
You point out that PCSO has a franchise “to
conduct national lotteries" and with — the
introduction of the Lotto, it now conducts | two
kinds of lotteries — the traditional sweepstakes.
which is passive, and Lotto, which is active. | Its
lottery ticket sellers/agente have always been
considered as mere extensions of the PCSO. and, as
such. they do not secure business permite from the
LGUs where they operate.
The specific authority of the municipality, or
city to issue business permit/license is derived
from | Sections — 447(3)(ii) and 458(3)(ii),
respectively, of the Local Government Code of 1991
GRA. No. 7260) which provide, respectively, as
‘ollows:
“SRC. 447. Powers, Duties, Functions
and Compensation - (a) The eangguniang
payan, as the legislative body of the
municipality, shall enact ordinances.
approve resolutions and appropriate funds
265PINION NO. 27 SIE
for the general welfare of the
municipality and its inhabitants pursuant
to Section 16 of this Code and in the
proper exercise of the corporate powers
of the municipality ae provided for under
Section 22 of this Code, and shall:
nox sat xx
(3) Subject to the provisions of
Book II of this Code, grant franchises.
enact ordinances authorizing the issuance
of. permits or licenses, or enact
ordinances levying taxes. fees and
Ghargee upon such conditions and for such
purposes intended to promote the general
welfare of the inhabitants of the
municipality, and pursuant to this
legislative authority shall:
2k
XXX
(44) Regulate any _ business,
occupation, or practice of profession or
calling which does not require government
examination within the municipality and
he condition under which the license for
said business or practice of profession
may be issued or revoked; xx:
“SEC. 458. Powers, Duties, Functions
and Compensation - (a) The sangguniang
panlungsod, as the legislative of the
city, shall enact ordinances, approve
fesdiutions and appropriate funds for the
general welfare of the city and, ite
fnhabitante pursuant to Section 16 of
this Code and in the proper exercise of
the corporate powers of the city as
provided. for under Section 22 of this
Code, and shal
prod xxx HH
(3) Subject to the provisions of
Book II of this Code, enact ordinances
granting franchises,and authorizing the
fesuance of permits or licenses,upon such
conditions and for such purposes intended
to promote the general welfare of the
inhabitants of the city, and pursuant to
this legislative authority shall:
xonx
x sent
(ii) Regulate or fix license fees
for any business or practice of
profession within the city | and the
Gonditions under which the license for
said business or practice of profession
may be revoked and enact ordinances
levying taxes thereon. xxxSPINION NO, 57 _, S. 192
The aforequoted provisions — empower the
municipality or city to regulate “any business”
within its territorial jurisdiction in line with
the general welfare clause provided in Section 16
of the Code. To make the exercise of the power
effective, the LGUs concerned are further vested
with the concomitant authority to impose
permit/license fees incident to regulation.
However, said authority is mot absolute in
character. This is clear from Sections 447 and
458, above quoted, making the statutory grant of
Bower “subject to the provisions of Book II of the
‘ode.
Section 133 of Book II, in particular,
prohibits L@Us, including the municipality or city,
from imposing taxes, fees or charges of any kind on
the "National Government, its agencies and
instrumentalities", as a common limitation to their
taxing authority. “Said provision reads:
"SEC. 133. Common Limitations on
the Taxing Powers of Lacal Government
Units. — Unless otherwise provided
herein, the exercise of the taxing powers
of provinces, cities, municipalities, and
barangays shall not extend to the levy of
the following:
xxx XxX ox
sng (0) Takes fees, or charges of anv
Kind_on the “National Government. its
agencies and instrumentalities, and local
government units." (underscoring
supplied.)
Thus, while Sections 447 and 458 confer upon
the municipality or city the power to regulate
businesses within their respective territorial
limits and impose license fees therefor, that power
cannot be exercised upon the “National Government,
its agencies and instrumentalities” in view of the
above limitation. Put differently, it means that
IaUs have no power to issue business
permits/licenses tothe agencies and
instrumentalities of the State, of which the PCSO
is one, nor demand or collect permit/license fees
incident to the issuance of such permits/licenses.
This rule has long been settled in the case of
Basco vs. Philippine Amusement And Gaming
Corporation (PAGCOR), 197 SCRA 52, which upheld the
exemption of the PAGCOR, an instrumentality of the
National Government, from the licensing authority
of 2,tecal government unit. The Supreme Court held
thus:
"(d) Local governments have no power
to tax instrumentalities of the National
Government. PAGCOR is a government-owned
or controlled corporation with an originalSPINION NO._ 9 S. 199°
charter, PD 1869. All of its shares of
stocks are owned by the National
Government .
XXX od
PAGCOR has a dual role, to operate
and regulate gambling casinos. The latter
role is governmental, which places it in
the category of an agency or
instrumentality of the Government. Being
an inetrumentality of the Government,
PAGCOR should be and actually is exempt
from local taxes. Otherwise, its
operation might be burdened, impeded or
subjected to control by a mere Local
government.
xxx xX ok
This doctrine emanates from the
‘supremacy’ of the National Government
ever local governments.
pone ax poor
Otherwise, mere creatures of the
State can defeat National policies thru
extermination of what local authorities
may perceive to be undesirable activities
or enterprise using the power to tax as “a
tool for regulation” (U.S. v Sanchez, 340
US 42).
The power to tax which was called by
Justice Marshall as the “power to destroy”
(Me Culloch v. Maryland, supra) cannot be
allowed to defeat an instrumentality or
creation of the very entity which has the
inherent power to wield it”
We do not see ‘any reason why the foregoing —
rule cannot apply to the PCSO which, like PAGCOR, —
is also a government instrumentality, it being a
government corporation with an original charter and
imbued with a governmental purpose - which is to
raise funds for charities and other social welfare
programs for the poor, the sick and the needy.
duly-appointed sales’ agents are, as you
pointed out, mere extensions of the PCSO,
should, like the PCSO, be also considered exempt
from the licensing authority of the LGUs where they
operate. a
Relevantly, the Court, in the recent case of
Magtajas ve. Pryce Properties Corp., Inc., 234 SCRA
255, has declared invalid two (2) city ordinances
purportedly issued in the exercise of police power
under Sections 16 and 458 (1)(v) of the Local
Government Code of 1991 prohibiting, the use of
buildings for the operation of a casino and the
to aOselNlGh NOL 2, S. Wor
Ses ie
operation of casinos for being contrary to P.D. No.
1869 (PAGCOR Charter) and the public policy
announced therein. The Court said -
“The tests of a valid ordinance are
well established. A long line of
decisions has held that to be valid, an
ordinance must conform to the following
substantive requirements:
a)
2) It must not be unfair or oppressive.
3) It must not be partial or
discriminatory.
4) It must not prohibit but may
regulate trade.
5) It must. be general and consistent
with public policy.
6) It must not be unreasonable.
2k xxx sox
The rationale of the requirement that
the ordinances should not contravene a
statute is obvious. Municipal governments
are only agents of the national
government. Local councils exercise only
delegated legislative powers conferred on
them by Congress as the national lawmaking
body. The delegate cannot be superior to
the principal or exercise powers higher
than those of the latter. It is a heresy
to suggest that the local government units
can undo the act of Congress, from which
they have derived their power in the first
place, and negate by mere ordinance the
mandate of the statute."
In the light of the foregoing. we are of the
opinion that. the PCSO and its’ lottery ticket
sellers, including lotto sales agents, are not
required to secure business permits/licenses from
the province, city or municipality where they may
operate and are also exempt from the authority of
the LGUs to impose taxes, fees or charges on the
PCSO lotto ticket outlets.
Very_trujy yours,
—&
T. chiwowa, IR.
Secretary