statcon cases 11.docx

7/27/2019 statcon cases 11.docx

1/23

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 103982. December 11, 1992.]

ANTONIOA. MECANO, petitioner,vs.

COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondent.

SYLLABUS1.STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; STATUTES; KINDS OF REPEALS. The

question of whether a particular law has been repealed or not by a subsequent law is

a matter of legislative intent. The lawmakers may expressly repeal a law by

incorporating therein a repealing provision which expressly and specifically cites the

particular law or laws, and portions thereof, that are intended to be repealed. Adeclaration in a statute, usually in its repealing clause, that a particular and specific

law, identified by its number or title, is repealed is an express repeal; all others are

implied repeals.

2.ID.; ID.; REPEALS BY IMPLICATION; NECESSITY OF A CLEAR

INDICATION OF LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE TO REPEAL. The fact that a later

enactment may relate to the same subject matter as that of an earlier statute is not of

itself sufficient to cause an implied repeal of the prior act, since the new statute may

merely be cumulative or a continuation of the old one. What is necessary is a

manifest indication of legislative purpose to repeal. Repeal by implication proceeds

on the premise that where a statute of later date clearly reveals an intention on the

part of the legislature to abrogate a prior act on the subject, that intention must begiven effect. Hence, before there can be a repeal, there must be a clear showing on

the part of the lawmaker that the intent in enacting the new law was to abrogate the

old one. The intention to repeal must be clear and manifest; otherwise, at least, as a

general rule, the later act is to be construed as a continuation of, and not a substitute

for, the first act and will continue so far as the two acts are the same from the time of

the first enactment.

3.ID.; ID.; ID.; CATEGORIES THEREOF. There are two categories of repeal by

implication. The first is where provisions in the two acts on the same subject matter

are in an irreconcilable conflict, The later act to the extent of the conflict constitutes

an implied repeal of the earlier one. The second is if the later act covers the whole

subject of the earlier one and is clearly intended as a substitute, it will operate to

repeal the earlier law. Implied repeal by irreconcilable inconsistency takes place

when the two statutes cover the same subject matter; they are so clearly inconsistent

and incompatible with each other that they cannot be reconciled or harmonized; and

both cannot be given effect, that is, that one law cannot be enforced without

nullifying the other. The second category of repeal the enactment of a statute

revising or codifying the former laws on the whole subject matter. This is only

possible if this revised statute or code was intended to cover the whole subject to be

a complete and perfect system in itself. It is the rule that a subsequent statute is

deemed to repeal a prior law if the former revises the whole subject matter of the

former statute. When both intent and scope clearly evince the idea of a repeal, then

all parts and provisions of the prior act that are omitted from the revised act are

deemed repealed. Furthermore, before there can be an implied repeal under this

category, it must be the clear intent of the legislature that the later act be the

substitute to the prior act.

4.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT IMPLIED REPEAL OF SECTION 699 OF THE

REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE CODE BY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987;

CASE AT BAR. Comparing the two Codes, it is apparent that the new Code does

not cover nor attempt to cover the entire subject matter of the old Code. There are

several matters treated in the old Code which are not found in the new Code, such as

the provisions on notaries public, the leave law, the public bonding law, military

reservations, claims for sickness benefits under Section 699, and still others.

Moreover, the COA failed to demonstrate that the provisions of the two Codes on the

matter of the subject claim are in an irreconcilable conflict. In fact, there can be no

such conflict because the provision on sickness benefits of the nature being claimed

by petitioner has not been restated in the Administrative Code of 1987.

5.ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION AND

INTERPRETATION OF LAWS; WEIGHT OF OPINIONS OF THE SECRETARY

OF JUSTICE ON STATUTES INPARI MATERIA; CASE AT BAR. According

to Opinion No. 73, S. 1991 of the Secretary of Justice, what appears clear is the

intent to cover only those aspects of government that pertain to administration,

organization and procedure, understandably because of the many changes that

transpired in the government structure since the enactment of the RAC decades of

years ago. The COA challenges the weight that this opinion carries in the

determination of this controversy inasmuch as the body which had been entrusted

with the implementation of this particular provision has already rendered its

decision. The COA relied on the rule in administrative law enunciated in the case

ofSison vs. Pangramuyen that in the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of

discretion, the Court would be loathe to substitute its own judgment for that of the

administrative agency entrusted with the enforcement and implementation of the law.

This will not hold water. This principle is subject to limitations. Administrative

decisions may be reviewed by the courts upon a showing that the decision is vitiated

by fraud, imposition or mistake. It has been held that Opinions of the Secretary and

Undersecretary of Justice are material in the construction of statutes in pari materia.

6.STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; REPEALS BY IMPLICATION NOT

FAVORED. Lastly, it is a well-settled rule of statutory construction that repeals

of statutes by implication are not favored. The presumption is against inconsistency

and repugnancy for the legislature is presumed to know the existing laws on the

subject and not to have enacted inconsistent or conflicting statutes. This Court, in a

case, explains the principle in detail as follows: "Repeals by implication are not

favored, and will not be decreed unless it is manifest that the legislature so intended.

As laws are presumed to be passed with deliberation with full knowledge of all

existing ones on the subject, it is but reasonable to conclude that in passing a statute

it was not intended to interfere with or abrogate any former law relating to some

matter, unless the repugnancy between the two is not only irreconcilable, but alsoclear and convincing, and flowing necessarily from the language used, unless the


2/23

later act fully embraces the subject matter of the earlier, or unless the reason for the

earlier act is beyond peradventure renewed. Hence, every effort must be used to

make all acts stand and if, by any reasonable construction, they can be reconciled,

the later act will not operate as a repeal of the earlier."

7.LABOR CODE; ARTICLE 173 THEREOF; EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION;

PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION THEREUNDER NOT A BAR TO RECOVERY

OF BENEFITS UNDER SEC. 699 OF THE REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.

Regarding respondent's contention that recovery under this subject section shall

bar the recovery of benefits under the Employees' Compensation Program, the same

cannot be upheld. The second sentence of Article 173, Chapter II, T itle II (dealing on

Employees' Compensation and State Insurance Fund), Book IV of the Labor Code,

as amended by P.D. 1921, expressly provides that "the payment of compensation

under this Title shall not bar the recovery of benefits as provided for in Section 669

of the Revised Administrative Code . . . whose benefits are administered by the

system (meaning SSS or GSIS) or by other agencies of the government."

D E C I S I O N

CAMPOS, JR.,Jp:

Antonio A. Mecano, through a petition for certiorari, seeks to nullify the decision of

the Commission on Audit (COA, for brevity) embodied in its 7th Indorsement, dated

January 16, 1992, denying his claim for reimbursement under Section 699 of the

Revised Administrative Code (RAC), as amended, in the total amount of P40,831.00.

Petitioner is a Director II of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). He was

hospitalized for cholecystitis from March 26, 1990 to April 7, 1990, on account of

which he incurred medical and hospitalization expenses, the total amount of which

he is claiming from the COA.

On May 11, 1990, in a memorandum to the NBI Director, Alfredo S. Lim (Director

Lim, for brevity), he requested reimbursement for his expenses on the ground that he

is entitled to the benefits under Section 6991of the RAC, the pertinent provisions of

which read:

"SECTION 699.Allowances in case of injury, death, or sickness

incurred in performance of duty. When a person in the

service of the national government or in the service of the

government of a province, city, municipality or municipal

district is so injured in the performance of duty as thereby to

receive some actual physical hurt or wound, the proper Head of

Department may direct that absence during any period ofdisability thereby occasioned shall be on full pay, though not

more than six months, and in such case he may in his discretion

also authorize the payment of the medical attendance, necessary

transportation, subsistence and hospital fees of the injured

person. Absence in the case contemplated shall be charged first

against vacation leave, if any there be.

xxx xxx xxx

"In case of sickness caused by or connected directly with theperformance of some act in the line of duty, the Department

head may in his discretion authorize the payment of the

necessary hospital fees." LLjur

Director Lim then forwarded petitioner's claim, in a 1st Indorsement dated June 22,

1990, to the Secretary of Justice, along with the comment, bearing the same date, of

Gerarda Galang, Chief, LED of the NBI, "recommending favorable action thereof".

Finding petitioner's illness to be service -connected, the Committee on Physical

Examination of the Department of Justice favorably recommended the payment of

petitioner's claim.

However, then Undersecretary of Justice Silvestre H. Bello III, in a 4th Indorsement

dated November 21, 1990, returned petitioner's claim to Director Lim, having

considered the statements of the Chairman of the COA in its 5th Indorsement dated

19 September 1990, to the effect that the RAC being relied upon was repealed by the

Administrative Code of 1987.

Petitioner then re-submitted his claim to Director Lim, with a copy of Opinion No.

73, S. 19912dated April 26, 1991 of then Secretary of Justice Franklin M. Drilon

(Secretary Drilon, for brevity) stating that "the issuance of the Administrative Code

did not operate to repeal or abrogate in its entirety the Revised Administrative Code,

including the particular Section 699 of the latter."

On May 10, 1991, Director Lim, under a 5th Indorsement transmitted

anew Mecano's claim to then Undersecretary Bello for favorable consideration.

Under a 6th Indorsement, dated July 2, 1991, Secretary Drilon forwarded petitioner's

claim to the COA Chairman, recommending payment of the same. COA Chairman

Eufemio C. Domingo, in his 7th Indorsement of January 16, 1992, however denied

petitioner's claim on the ground that Section 699 of the RAC has been repealed by

the Administrative Code of 1987, solely for the reason that the same section was not

restated nor re-enacted in the Administrative Code of 1987. He commented,

however, that the claim may be filed with the Employees'

Compensation Commission, considering that the illness of Director Mecano occurred

after the effectivity of the Administrative Code of 1987.
http://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnotes


3/23

Eventually, petitioner's claim was returned by Undersecretary of Justice Eduardo

Montenegro to Director Lim under a 9th Indorsement dated February 7, 1992, with

the advice that petitioner "elevate the matter to the Supreme Court if he so desires."

On the sole issue of whether or not the Administrative Code of 1987 repealed or

abrogated Section 699 of the RAC, this petition was brought for the consideration of

this Court. cdphil

Petitioner anchors his claim on Section 699 of the RAC, as amended, and on theaforementioned Opinion No. 73, S. 1991 of Secretary Drilon. He further maintains

that in the event that a claim is filed with the Employees'

Compensation Commission, as suggested by respondent, he would still not be barred

from filing a claim under the subject section. Thus, the resolution of whether or not

there was a repeal of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 would decide the fate

of petitioner's claim for reimbursement.

The COA, on the other hand, strongly maintains that the enactment of the

Administrative Code of 1987 (Exec. Order No. 292) operated to revoke or supplant

in its entirety the Revised Administrative Code of 1917. The COA claims that from

the "whereas" clauses of the new Administrative Code, it can be gleaned that it was

the intent of the legislature to repeal the old Code. Moreover, the COA questions theapplicability of the aforesaid opinion of the Secretary of Justice in deciding the

matter. Lastly, the COA contends that employment-related sickness, injury or death

is adequately covered by the Employees' Compensation Program under P.D. 626,

such that to allow simultaneous recovery of benefits under both laws on account of

the same contingency would be unfair and unjust to the government.

The question of whether a particular law has been repealed or not by a subsequent

law is a matter of legislative intent. The lawmakers may expressly repeal a law by

incorporating therein a repealing provision which expressly and specifically cites the

particular law or laws, and portions thereof, that are intended to be repealed. 3 A

declaration in a statute, usually in its repealing clause, that a particular and specific

law, identified by its number or title, is repealed is an express repeal; all others areimplied repeals.4

In the case of the two Administrative Codes in question, the ascertainment of

whether or not it was the intent of the legislature to supplant the old Code with the

new Code partly depends on the scrutiny of the repealing clause of the new Code.

This provision is found in Section 27, Book VII (Final Provisions) of the

Administrative Code of 1987 which reads:

"SECTION 27.Repealing Clause. All laws, decrees, orders,

rules and regulations, or portions thereof, inconsistent with this

Code are hereby repealed or modified accordingly."

The question that should be asked is: What is the nature of this repealing clause? It is

certainly not an express repealing clause because it fails to identify or designate the

act or acts that are intended to be repealed.5Rather, it is an example of a general

repealing provision, as stated in Opinion No. 73, S. 1991. It is a clause which

predicates the intended repeal under the condition that a substantial conflict must be

found in existing and prior acts. The failure to add a specific repealing clause

indicates that the intent was not to repeal any existing law, unless an irreconcilable

inconsistency and repugnancy exist in the terms of the new and old laws. 6This

latter situation falls under the category of an implied repeal.

Repeal by implication proceeds on the premise that where a statute of later date

clearly reveals an intention on the part of the legislature to abrogate a prior act on the

subject, that intention must be given effect.7Hence, before there can be a repeal,

there must be a clear showing on the part of the lawmaker that the intent in enacting

the new law was to abrogate the old one. The intention to repeal must be clear and

manifest;8otherwise, at least, as a general rule, the later act is to be construed as a

continuation of, and not a substitute for, the first act and will continue so far as the

two acts are the same from the time of the first enactment.9

There are two categories of repeal by implication. The first is where provisions in the

two acts on the same subject matter are in an irreconcilable conflict, The later act to

the extent of the conflict constitutes an implied repeal of the earlier one. The second

is if the later act covers the whole subject of the earlier one and is clearly intended as

a substitute, it will operate to repeal the earlier law.10

Implied repeal by irreconcilable inconsistency takes place when the two statutes

cover the same subject matter; they are so clearly inconsistent and incompatible with

each other that they cannot be reconciled or harmonized; and both cannot be given

effect, that is, that one law cannot he enforced without nullifying the other.

11 LexLib

Comparing the two Codes, it is apparent that the new Code does not cover nor

attempt to cover the entire subject matter of the old Code. There are several matterstreated in the old Code which are not found in the new Code, such as the provisions

on notaries public, the leave law, the public bonding law, military reservations,

claims for sickness benefits under Section 699, and still others.

Moreover, the COA failed to demonstrate that the provisions of the two Codes on the

matter of the subject claim are in an irreconcilable conflict. In fact, there can be no

such conflict because the provision on sickness benefits of the nature being claimed

by petitioner has not been restated in the Administrative Code of 1987. However, the

COA would have Us consider that the fact that Section 699 was not restated in the

Administrative Code of 1987 meant that the same section had been repealed. It

further maintained that to allow the particular provisions not restated in the new

Code to continue in force argues against the Code itself. The COA anchored thisargument on the whereas clause of the 1987 Code, which states:
http://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnotes


4/23

"WHEREAS, the effectiveness of the Government will be

enhanced by a new Administrative Code which incorporates in

a unified documentthe major structural, functional and

procedural principles and rules of governance; and

xxx xxx xxx"

It argues, in effect, that what is contemplated is only one Code the

Administrative Code of 1987. This contention is untenable.

The fact that a later enactment may relate to the same subject matter as that of an

earlier statute is not of itself sufficient to cause an implied repeal of the prior act,

since the new statute may merely be cumulative or a continuation of the old

one.12What is necessary is a manifest indication of legislative purpose to repeal.13

We come now to the second category of repeal the enactment of a statute revising

or codifying the former laws on the whole subject matter. This is only possible if this

revised statute or code was intended to cover the whole subject to be a complete and

perfect system in itself. It is the rule that a subsequent statute is deemed to repeal a

prior law if the former revises the whole subject matter of the former

statute.14When both intent and scope clearly evince the idea of a repeal, then all

parts and provisions of the prior act that are omitted from the revised act are deemedrepealed.15Furthermore, before there can be an implied repeal under this category,

it must be the clear intent of the legislature that the later act be the substitute to the

prior act.16

According to Opinion No. 73, S. 1991 of the Secretary of Justice, what appears clear

is the intent to cover only those aspects of government that pertain to administration,

organization and procedure, understandably because of the many changes that

transpired in the government structure since the enactment of the RAC decades of

years ago. The COA challenges the weight that this opinion carries in the

determination of this controversy inasmuch as the body which had been entrusted

with the implementation of this particular provision has already rendered its

decision. The COA relied on the rule in administrative law enunciated in the caseofSison vs. Pangramuyen17that in the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of

discretion, the Court would be loathe to substitute its own judgment for that of the

administrative agency entrusted with the enforcement and implementation of the law.

This will not hold water. This principle is subject to limitations. Administrative

decisions may be reviewed by the courts upon a showing that the decision is vitiated

by fraud, imposition or mistake.18It has been held that Opinions of the Secretary

and Undersecretary of Justice are material in the construction of statutes in pari

materia.19

Lastly, it is a well-settled rule of statutory construction that repeals of statutes by

implication are not favored.20The presumption is against inconsistency and

repugnancy for the legislature is presumed to know the existing laws on the subject

and not to have enacted inconsistent or conflicting statutes.21

This Court, in a case, explains the principle in detail as follows: "Repeals by

implication are not favored, and will not be decreed unless it is manifest that the

legislature so intended. As laws are presumed to be passed with deliberation with full

knowledge of all existing ones on the subject, it is but reasonable to conclude that in

passing a statute it was not intended to interfere with or abrogate any former law

relating to some matter, unless the repugnancy between the two is not only

irreconcilable, but also clear and convincing, and flowing necessarily from the

language used, unless the later act fully embraces the subject matter of the earlier, or

unless the reason for the earlier act is beyond peradventure renewed. Hence, every

effort must be used to make all acts stand and if, by any reasonable construction,

they can be reconciled, the later act will not operate as a repeal of the earlier.22

Regarding respondent's contention that recovery under this subject section shall bar

the recovery of benefits under the Employees' Compensation Program, the same

cannot be upheld. The second sentence of Article 173, of the Labor Code, as

amended by P.D. 1921, expressly provides that "the payment of compensation under

this Title shall not bar the recovery of benefits as provided for in Section 669 of the

Revised Administrative Code xxx whose benefits are administered by the system

(meaning SSS or GSIS) or by other agencies of the government."

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to GRANT the petition;

respondent is hereby ordered to give due course to petitioner's claim for benefits. No

costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Grio-Aquino, Regalado, Davide,

Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo and Melo, JJ., concur.

Gutierrez, Jr., J., concurs in the result.

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 127383. August 18, 2005.]
http://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/17278?search=title%3A+%28Mecano%29+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+audit%29#footnotes


5/23

THE CITY OF DAVAO, CITY TREASURER AND THE

CITY ASSESSOR OF DAVAO CITY, petitioners, vs. THE

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH XII, DAVAO

CITY AND THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE

SYSTEM (GSIS), respondents.

The City Legal Office for petitioners.

Legal Department (GSIS) for respondents.

SYLLABUS

1.POLITICAL LAW; ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO.

1981; EXPRESSLY STATING THAT THE TAX-EXEMPT STATUS OF GSIS

REMAINED IN PLACE. Notably, P.D. No. 1931 was also an exercise of

legislative powers then accorded to President Marcos by virtue of Amendment No. 6

to the 1973 Constitution. Whether he was aware of the effect of P.D. No. 1931 on the

GSIS's tax-exempt status or the ramifications of the decree thereon is unknown; but

apparently, he immediately reconsidered the withdrawal of the exemptions on the

GSIS. Thus, P.D. No. 1981 was enacted, expressly stating that the tax-exempt statusof the GSIS under Section 33 of P.D. No. 1146 remained in place, notwithstanding

the passage of P.D. No. 1931. However, P.D. No. 1981 did not stop there, serving

merely as it should to restore the previous exemptions on the GSIS. It also attempted

to proscribe future attempts to alter the tax-exempt status of the GSIS by imposing

unorthodox conditions for its future repeal. Thus, as intimated earlier, a second

paragraph was added to Section 33, containing the restrictions relied upon by the

RTC and presently invoked by the GSIS before this Court.

2.ID.; LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT; ONLY THE CONSTITUTION MAY

OPERATE TO PRECLUDE OR PLACE RESTRICTIONS ON THE

AMENDMENT OR REPEAL OF LAWS. The second paragraph of Section 33 of

P.D. No. 1146, as amended, effectively imposes restrictions on the competency ofthe Congress to enact future legislation on the taxability of the GSIS. This places an

undue restraint on the plenary power of the legislature to amend or repeal laws,

especially considering that it is a lawmaker's act that imposes such burden. Only the

Constitution may operate to preclude or place restrictions on the amendment or

repeal of laws. Constitutional dicta is of higher order than legislative statutes, and the

latter should always yield to the former in cases of irreconcilable conflict.

3.ID.; ID.; IMPLIED SUBSTANTIVE LIMITATIONS ON THE LEGISLATIVE

POWERS IS THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE PASSAGE OF IRREPARABLE

LAWS.It is a basic precept that among the implied substantive limitations on the

legislative powers is the prohibition against the passage of irrepealable laws.

Irrepealable laws deprive succeeding legislatures of the fundamental best sensescarte blanche in crafting laws appropriate to the operative milieu. Their allowance

promotes an unhealthy stasis in the legislative front and dissuades dynamic

democratic impetus that may be responsive to the times. As Senior Associate Justice

Reynato S. Puno once observed, "[t]o be sure, there are no irrepealable laws just as

there are no irrepealable Constitutions. Change is the predicate of progress and we

should not fear change." Moreover, it would be noxious anathema to democratic

principles for a legislative body to have the ability to bind the actions of future

legislative body, considering that both assemblies are regarded with equal footing,

exercising as they do the same plenary powers. Perpetual infallibility is not one of

the attributes desired in a legislative body, and a legislature which attempts to

forestall future amendments or repeals of its enactments labors under delusions ofomniscience.

4.ID.; ID.; RATIONALE FOR PROHIBITING IRREPARABLE LAWS APPLIES

IN PROHIBITING RESTRAINTS ON FUTURE AMENDATORY LAWS. It

might be argued that Section 33 of P.D. No. 1146, as amended, does not preclude the

repeal of the tax-exempt status of GSIS, but merely imposes conditions for such to

validly occur. Yet these conditions, if honored, have the precise effect of limiting the

powers of Congress. Thus, the same rationale for prohibiting irrepealable laws

applies in prohibiting restraints on future amendatory laws. President Marcos, who

exercised his legislative powers in amending P.D. No. 1146, could not have

demanded obeisance from future legislators by imposing restrictions on their ability

to legislate amendments or repeals. The concerns that may have militated hisenactment of these restrictions need not necessarily be shared by subsequent

Congresses.

5.ID.; ID.; IF CONGRESS HAS THE INHERENT POWER TO ABROGATE THE

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) ITSELF, THEN IT

NECESSARILY HAS THE ABILITY TO INFLICT LESS DETRIMENTAL

BURDENS.We do not mean to trivialize the need to ensure the solvency of the

GSIS fund, a concern that has seen legislative expression, even with the most

recently enacted Government Service Insurance System Act of 1997. Yet at the same

time, we recognize that Congress has the putative authority, through valid

legislation, to diminish such fund, or even abolish the GSIS itself if it so desires. The

GSIS may provide vital services and security to employees of the civil service, yet it

is not a sacred cow that is beyond abolition by Congress if, for example, more

innovative methods are devised to ensure stable pension funds for government

employees. If Congress has the inherent power to abrogate the GSIS itself, then it

necessarily has the ability to inflict less detrimental burdens, such as abolishing its

tax-exempt status. If there could be legal authority proscribing the Congress from

enacting such legislation, such should be sourced from the Constitution itself, and

not from antecedent statutes which were themselves enacted by legislative power.

6.ID.; ID.; LEGISLATURE CANNOT BIND A FUTURE LEGISLATURE TO A

PARTICULAR MODE OF REPEAL. The Court's position is aligned with

entrenched norms of statutory construction. In Duarte v. Dade, the Court cited with

approval Lewis' Southerland on Statutory Construction, which states: A state


6/23

legislature has a plenary law-making power over all subjects, whether pertaining to

persons or things, within its territorial jurisdiction, either to introduce new laws or

repeal the old, unless prohibited expressly or by implication by the federal

constitution or limited or restrained by its own. It cannot bind itself or its successors

by enacting irrepealable laws except when so restrained. Every legislative body may

modify or abolish the acts passed by itself or its predecessors. This power of repeal

may be exercised at the same session at which the original act was passed; and even

while a bill is in its progress and before it becomes a law. This legislature cannot

bind a future legislature to a particular mode of repeal. It cannot declare in advance

the intent of subsequent legislatures or the effect of subsequent legislation uponexisting statutes.

7.ID.; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND

STATE POLICIES; THE STATE IS MANDATED TO ENSURE THE

AUTONOMY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. Also worthy of note is that the

Constitution itself promotes the principles of local autonomy as embodied in the

Local Government Code. The State is mandated to ensure the autonomy of local

governments, and local governments are empowered to levy taxes, fees and charges

that accrue exclusively to them, subject to congressional guidelines and limitations.

The principle of local autonomy is no mere passing dalliance but a constitutionally

enshrined precept that deserves respect and appropriate enforcement by this Court.

8.ID.; STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; STATUTORY INTERPRETATIONS OFEXECUTIVE BODIES DO NOT HOLD DECISIVE SWAY UPON THE

JUDICIARY.We are aware that this stance runs contrary to that which was

adopted by the Secretary of Justice in his Opinion dated 22 July 1993, as well as the

memorandum from the Office of the President dated 14 February 1995, expressing

the same opinion. However, statutory interpretations of these executive bodies do not

hold decisive sway upon the judiciary but are merely persuasive. These issuances

cannot derogate from the binding precept that one legislature cannot enact

irrepealable legislation or limit or restrict its own power or the power of its

successors as to the repeal of statutes. The act of one legislature is not binding upon

and does not tie the hands of future legislatures.

D E C I S I O N

TINGA, Jp:

A Davao City Regional Trial Court (RTC) upheld the tax-exempt status of the

Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) for the years 1992 to 1994 in

contravention of the mandate under the Local Government Code of 1992,1 the

precedent set by this Court inMactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. Hon.

Marcos,2 and the public policy on local autonomy enshrined in the Constitution.3

The matter was elevated to this Court directly from the trial court on a pure question

of law.4 The facts are uncontroverted.

On 8 April 1994, the GSIS Davao City branch office received a Notice of Public

Auction scheduling the public bidding of GSIS properties located in Matina and

Ulas, Davao City for non-payment of realty taxes for the years 1992 to 1994 totaling

Two Hundred Ninety Five Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty One Pesos and Sixty

One Centavos (P295,721.61).5 The auction was subsequently reset by virtue of a

deadline extension allowed by Davao City for the payment of delinquent real

property taxes.6

On 28 July 1994, the GSIS received Warrants of Levy and Notices of Levy on three

parcels of land owned by the GSIS. Another Notice of Public Auction was received

by the GSIS on 29 August 1994, setting the date of auction sale for 20 September

1994.

On 13 September 1994, the GSIS filed aPetition for Certiorari, Prohibition,

Mandamus And/Or Declaratory Reliefwith the RTC of Davao City. It also sought

the issuance of a temporary restraining order. The case was raffled to Branch 12,

presided by Judge Maximo Magno Libre. On 13 September 1994, the RTC issued a

temporary restraining order for a period of twenty (20) days,7 effectively enjoiningthe auction sale scheduled seven days later. Following exchange of arguments, the

RTC issued an Orderdated 3 April 1995 issuing a writ of preliminary injunction

effective for the duration of the suit.8

At the pre-trial, it was agreed that the sole issue for resolution was purely a question

of law, that is, whether Sections 234 and 534 of the Local Government Code, which

have withdrawn real property tax exemptions of government owned and controlled

corporations (GOCCs), have also withdrawn from the GSIS its right to be exempted

from payment of the realty taxes sought to be levied by Davao City.9 The parties

submitted their respective memoranda.

On 28 May 1996, the RTC rendered theDecision10 now assailed before this Court.It concluded that notwithstanding the enactment of the local Government Code, the

GSIS retained its exemption from all taxes, including real estate taxes. The RTC

cited Section 33 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1146, the Revised Government

Service Insurance Act of 1977, as amended by P.D. No. 1981, which mandated such

exemption.

The RTC conceded that the tax exempting statute, P.D. No. 1146, was enacted prior

to the Local Government Code. However, it noted that the earlier law had prescribed

two conditions in order that the tax exemption provided therein could be withdrawn

by future enactments, namely: (1) that Section 33 be expressly and categorically

repealed by law; and (2) that a provision be enacted to substitute the declared policy

of exemption from any and all taxes as an essential factor for the solvency of theGSIS fund.11 The RTC concluded that both conditions had not been satisfied by the
http://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnotes


7/23

Local Government Code. The RTC likewise accorded weight to Legal Opinion No.

165 of the Secretary of Justice, dated 16 December 1996 concluding that Section 33

was not repealed by the Local Government Code, and a memorandum emanating

from the Office of the President dated 14 February 1995 expressing the same

opinion.12

The dispositive portion of the assailedDecision reads:

Now then, in light of the foregoing observation, the court

perceives, that the cause of action asseverated by petitioner in its

petition has been well established by law and jurisprudence, and

therefore the following relief should be granted:

a)The tax exemption privilege of petitioner should be

upheld and continued and that the warrants of

levy and notices of levy issued by the

respondent Treasurer is hereby voided and

declared of no effect;

b)Let a writ of prohibition be issued restraining the City

Treasurer from proceeding with the auctionsale of the subject properties, as well as the

respondents Register of Deeds from annotating

the warrants/notices of levy on the certificate

of titles of petitioners real properties subject of

this suit; and

c)Compelling the City Assessor of Davao City to

include the properties of petitioner in the list of

properties exempt from payment of realty taxand if the warrants and levies issued by the

City Treasurer had been annotated in the

memorandum of encumbrance on thecertificates of title of petitioner's properties, to

cancel such annotation so that the certificates

of titles of petitioners will be free from such

liens and encumbrances.

SO ORDERED.13

Petitioners'Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the RTC in an Orderdated 30

October 1996, hence the present petition.

Petitioners argue that the exemption granted in Section 33 of P.D. No. 1146, asamended, was effectively withdrawn upon the enactment of the Local Government

Code, particularly Sections 193 and 294 thereof. These provisions made the GSIS,

along with all other GOCCs, subject to realty taxes. Petitioners point out that under

Section 534 (f) of the Local Government Code, even special laws, such as PD No.

1146, which are inconsistent with the Local Government Code, are repealed or

modified accordingly.

On the other hand, GSIS contends, as the RTC held, that the requisites for repeal are

laid down in Section 33 of P.D. No. 1146, as amended, namely that i t be done

expressly and categorically by law, and that a provision be enacted to substitute the

declared policy of exemption from taxes as an essential factor for the solvency of theGSIS fund. It stresses that it had been exempt from taxation as far back as 1936,

when its original charter was enacted through Commonwealth Act No. 186.14 It

asserts further that this Court had previously recognized the "extraordinary

exemption" of GSIS in Testate Estate of Concordia T. Lim v. City of Manila,15 and

such exemption has similarly been affirmed by the Secretary of Justice and the

Office of the President in the aforementioned issuances also cited by the RTC.16

GSIS likewise notes that had it been the intention of the legislature to repeal Section

33 of P.D. No. 1146 through the Local Government Code, said law would have

included the appropriate retraction in its repealing clause found in Section 534(f).

However, said section, according to the GSIS, partakes the nature of a general

repealing provision which is accorded less weight in light of the rule that implied

repeals are not favored. Consequently with its position that it remains exempt from

realty taxation, the GSIS argues that the Notices o f Assessment, Warrants and

Notices of Levy, Notices of Public Auction Sale and the Annotations of the Notice of

Levy are void ab initio. TEAaDC

A review of the relevant statutory provisions is in order.

Presidential Decree No. 1146 was enacted in 1977 by President Marcos in the

exercise of his legislative powers. Section 33, as originally enacted, read:

Sec. 33.Exemption from tax, Legal Process and Lien.

It ishereby declared to be the policy of the State that the actuarial

solvency of the funds of the System shall be preserved and

maintained at all times and that the contribution rates necessary

to sustain the benefits under this Act shall be kept as low as

possible in order not to burden the members of the system and/or

their employees. . . . Accordingly, notwithstanding any laws to

the contrary, the System, its assets, revenues including the

accruals thereto, and benefits paid, shall be exempt from all

taxes. These exemptions shall continue unless expressly and

specifically revoked and any assessment against the System as of

the approval of this Act are hereby considered paid.
http://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnotes


8/23

As it stood then, Section 33 merely provided a general rule exempting the GSIS from

all taxes. However, Section 33 of P.D. No. 1146 was amended in 1985 by President

Marcos, again in the exercise of his legislative powers, through P.D. No. 1981. It

was through this latter decree that a second paragraph was added to Section 33

delineating the requisites for repeal of the tax exemption enjoyed by the GSIS by

incorporating the following:

xxx xxx xxx

Moreover, these exemptions shall not be affected by subsequent

laws to the contrary, such as the provisions of Presidential

Decree No. 1931 and other similar laws that have been or will be

enacted, unless this section is expressly and categorically

repealed by law and a provision is enacted to substitute the

declared policy of exemption from any and all taxes as an

essential factor for the solvency of the fund.17

It bears noting though, and it is perhaps key to understanding the necessity of the

addendum provided under P.D. No. 1981, that a presidential decree enacted a year

earlier, P.D. No. 1931, effectively withdrew all tax exemption privileges granted to

GOCCs.18 In fact, P.D. No. 1931 was specifically named in the afore-quotedaddendum as among those laws which, despite passage, would not affect the tax

exempt status of GSIS. Section 1 of P.D. No. 1931 states:

Sec. 1.The provisions of special or general law to the contrary

notwithstanding, all exemptions from the payment of duties,

taxes, fees, imposts and other charges heretofore granted in favor

of government-owned or controlled corporations including their

subsidiaries, are hereby withdrawn.

There is no doubt that the GSIS which was established way back in 1937 is a GOCC,a fact that GSIS itself admits in its petition forcertiorari before the RTC.19 It thus

clear that Section 1 of P.D. No. 1931 expressly withdrew those exemptions granted

to the GSIS. Presidential Decree No. 1931 did allow the exemption to be restored in

special cases through an application for restoration with the Secretary of Finance, but

otherwise, the exemptions granted to the GSIS prior to the enactment of P.D. No.

1931 were withdrawn.

Notably, P.D. No. 1931 was also an exercise of legislative powers then accorded to

President Marcos by virtue of Amendment No. 6 to the 1973 Constitution. Whether

he was aware of the effect of P.D. No. 1931 on the GSIS's tax-exempt status or the

ramifications of the decree thereon is unknown; but apparently, he immediately

reconsidered the withdrawal of the exemptions on the GSIS. Thus, P.D. No. 1981

was enacted, expressly stating that the tax-exempt status of the GSIS under Section

33 of P.D. No. 1146 remained in place, notwithstanding the passage of P.D. No.

1931. aSCHcA

However, P.D. No. 1981 did not stop there, serving merely as it should to restore the

previous exemptions on the GSIS. It also attempted to proscribe future attempts to

alter the tax-exempt status of the GSIS by imposing unorthodox conditions for its

future repeal. Thus, as intimated earlier, a second paragraph was added to Section 33,

containing the restrictions relied upon by the RTC and presently invoked by the

GSIS before this Court.

These laws have to be weighed against the Local Government Code of 1992, a

landmark law which implemented the constitutional aspirations for a more extensive

breadth of local autonomy. The Court, inMactan, was asked to consider the effect of

the Local Government Code on the taxability by local governments of GOCCs such

as the Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA). Particularly, MCIAA

invoked Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code as the basis for its claimed

exemption, the provision reading:

SECTION 133.Common Limitations on the Taxing Powers of

Local 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 xxx

(o)Taxes, fees or charges of any kind on the National

Government, its agencies and instrumentalities

and local government units.

However, the Court, in ruling MCIAA non-exempt from realty taxes, considered that

Section 133 qualified the exemption of the National Government, its agencies andinstrumentalities from local taxation with the phrase "unless otherwise provided

herein." The Court then considered the other relevant provisions of the Local

Government Code, particularly the following:

SECTION 193.Withdrawal of Tax Exemption Privileges.

Unless otherwise provided in this Code, tax exemption or

incentives granted to, or enjoyed by all persons, whether

natural or juridical, including government-owned and

controlled corporations, except local water districts,

cooperatives duly registered under R.A. No. 6938, non-stock and

non-profit hospitals and educational institutions, are hereby

withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code.
http://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnotes


9/23

SECTION 232.Power to Levy Real Property Tax.A province

or city or a municipality within the Metropolitan Manila area

may levy an annual ad valoremtax on real property such as land,

building, machinery, and other improvements not hereafter

specifically exempted.

SECTION 234.Exemptions from Real Property Tax. The

following are exempted from payment of the real property tax:

(a)Real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or

any of its political subdivisions except when the

beneficial use thereof has been granted, for

consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person;

(b)Charitable institutions, churches, parsonages or convents

appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit or religious

cemeteries and all lands, buildings, and improvements

actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious

charitable or educational purposes;

(c)All machineries and equipment that are actually, directly andexclusively used by local water districts and

government-owned and controlled corporations

engaged in the distribution of water and/or generation

and transmission of electric power;

(d)All real property owned by duly registered cooperatives as

provided for under R.A. No. 6938; and

(e)Machinery and equipment used for pollution control and

environmental protection.

Except as provided herein, any exemption from payment of

real property tax previously granted to, or presently enjoyed

by, all persons, whether natural or juridical, including all

government-owned or controlled corporations are hereby

withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code. (Emphasis

supplied.)

Evidently, Section 133 was not intended to be so absolute a prohibition on the power

of LGUs to tax the National Government, its agencies and instrumentalities, as

evidenced by these cited provisions which "otherwise provided." But what was the

extent of the limitation under Section 133? This is how the Court, in a discussion of

far-reaching consequence, defined the parameters inMactan:

The foregoing sections of the LGC speak of: (a) the limitations

on the taxing powers of local government units and the

exceptions to such limitations; and (b) the rule on tax

exemptions and the exceptions thereto. The use of exceptions or

provisos in these sections, as shown by the following clauses:

(1)"unless otherwise provided herein" in the opening

paragraph of Section 133;

(2)"Unless otherwise provided in this Code" in Section

193;

(3)"not hereafter specifically exempted" in Section 232;

and

(4)"Except as provided herein" in the last paragraph of

Section 234

initially hampers a ready understanding of the sections. Note,

too, that the aforementioned clause in Section 133 seems to be

inaccurately worded. Instead of the clause "unless otherwiseprovided herein," with the "herein" to mean, of course, the

section, it should have used the clause "unless otherwise

provided in this Code." The former results in absurdity since the

section itself enumerates what are beyond the taxing powers of

local government units and, where exceptions were intended, the

exceptions are explicitly indicated in the next. For instance, in

item (a) which excepts income taxes "when levied on banks and

other financial institutions;" item (d) which excepts "wharfage

on wharves constructed and maintained by the local governmentunit concerned"; and item (1) which excepts taxes, fees and

charges for the registration and issuance of licenses or permits

for the driving of "tricycles." It may also be observed that withinthe body itself of the section, there are exceptions which can be

found only in other parts of the LGC, but the section

interchangeably uses therein the clause, "except as otherwise

provided herein" as in items (c) and (i), or the clause "except as

provided in this Code" in item (j). These clauses would be

obviously unnecessary or mere surplusages if the opening clause

of the section were "Unless otherwise provided herein." In any

event, even if the latter is used, since under Section 232 local

government units have the power to levy real property tax,

except those exempted therefrom under Section 234, then

Section 232 must be deemed to qualify Section 133.


10/23

Thus, reading together Section 133, 232, and 234 of the LGC,

we conclude that as a general rule, as laid down in Section

133, the taxing powers of local government units cannot

extend to the levy of, inter alia, "taxes, fees and charges of

any kind on the National Government, its agencies and

instrumentalities, and local government units"; however,

pursuant to Section 232, provinces, cities, and municipalities

in the Metropolitan Manila Area may impose the real

property tax except on, inter alia, "real property owned by

the Republic of the Philippines or any of its politicalsubdivisions except when the beneficial use thereof has been

granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person,"

as provided in item (a) of the first paragraph of Section 234.

As to tax exemption or incentives granted to or presently

enjoyed by natural or juridical persons, including government-

owned and controlled corporations, Section 193 of the LGC

prescribes the general rule, viz., they are withdrawn upon the

effectivity of the LGC, except those granted to local water

districts, cooperatives duly registered under R.A. No. 6938, non-

stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions, and

unless otherwise provided in the LGC. The latter proviso couldrefer to Section 234 which enumerates the properties exempt

from real property tax. But the last paragraph of Section 234

further qualifies the retention of the exemption insofar as real

property taxes are concerned by limiting the retention only to

those enumerated therein; all others not included in the

enumeration lost the privilege upon the effectivity of the LGC.

Moreover, even as to real property owned by the Republic of the

Philippines or any of its political subdivisions covered by item

(a) of the first paragraph of Section 234, the exemption is

withdrawn if the beneficial use of such property has been

granted to a taxable person for consideration or otherwise.

Since the last paragraph of Section 234 unequivocally withdrew,

upon the effectivity of the LGC, exemptions from payment of

real property taxes granted to natural or juridical persons,

including government-owned or controlled corporations, except

as provided in the said section, and the petitioner is,

undoubtedly, a government-owned corporation, it necessarily

follows that its exemption from such tax granted it in Section 14

of its Charter, R.A. No. 6958, has been withdrawn. Any claim to

the contrary can only be justified if the petitioner can seek refuge

under any of the exceptions provided in Section 234, but not

under Section 133, as it now asserts, since, as shown above, the

said section is qualified by Sections 232 and 234.20 (Emphasis

supplied.)

This Court, inMactan, acknowledged that under Section 133, instrumentalities were

generally exempt from all forms of local government taxation, unless otherwise

provided in the Code. On the other hand, Section 232 "otherwise provides" insofar as

it allowed local government units to levy an ad valorem real property tax,

irrespective of who owned the property. At the same time, the imposition of real

property taxes under Section 232 is in turn qualified by the phrase "not hereinafter

specifically exempted." The exemptions from real property taxes are enumerated in

Section 234, which specifically states that only real properties owned "by the

Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions" are exempted from

the payment of the tax. Clearly, instrumentalities or GOCCs do not fall within the

exceptions under Section 234.

Worth reckoning, however, is an essential difference between the situation of the

MCIAA (and most other GOCCs, for that matter) and that of the GSIS. Unlike most

other GOCCs, there is a statutory provisionSection 33 of P.D. No. 1146, as

amended

which imposes conditions on the subsequent withdrawal of the GSIS'stax exemptions. The RTC justified the affirmance of the tax exemptions based on the

non-compliance by the Local Government Code with these conditionalities, and not

by reason of a general proposition that GOCCs or instrumentalities remain exempt

from local government taxation.

Absent Section 33 of P.D. No. 1146, as amended, there would be no impediment in

squarely applying the express provisions of Sections 193, 232 and 234 of the Local

Government Code, as the Court did inMactan and recently inPhilippine Rural

Electric Cooperatives Association, Inc. et al. v. Secretary of Interior And Local

Government, et al.21 and in ruling that the tax exemptions of GSIS were withdrawn

by the Code. Thus, the crucial proposition is whether the GSIS tax exemptions can

be deemed as withdrawn by the Local Government Code notwithstanding Section 33of P.D. No. 1146 as amended.

Concededly, it does not appear that at the very least, the second conditionality of

Section 33 has been met. No provision has been enacted " to substitute the declared

policy of exemption from any and all taxes as an essential factor for the solvency of

the fund."22 Yet the Court is averse to employing this framework, in the first place

as utilized by the RTC, for we recognize a fundamental flaw in Section 33,

particularly the amendatory second paragraph introduced by P.D. No. 1981. IcaHTA

The second paragraph of Section 33 of P.D. No. 1146, as amended, effectively

imposes restrictions on the competency of the Congress to enact future legislation on

the taxability of the GSIS. This places an undue restraint on the plenary power of thelegislature to amend or repeal laws, especially considering that it is a lawmaker's act
http://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28RTC%29%29+OR+%28title%3A+%28City+of+davao%29+AND+title%3A+%28%22Regional+Trial+Court%22%29%29#footnotes


11/23

that imposes such burden. Only the Constitution may operate to preclude or place

restrictions on the amendment or repeal of laws. Constitutional dicta is of higher

order than legislative statutes, and the latter should always yield to the former in

cases of irreconcilable conflict.

It is a basic precept that among the implied substantive limitations on the legislative

powers is the prohibition against the passage of irrepealable laws.23Irrepealable

laws deprive succeeding legislatures of the fundamental best senses carte blanche in

crafting laws appropriate to the operative milieu. Their allowance promotes an

unhealthy stasis in the legislative front and dissuades dynamic democratic impetusthat may be responsive to the times. As Senior Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno

once observed, "[t]o be sure, there are no irrepealable laws just as there are no

irrepealable Constitutions. Change is the predicate of progress and we should not

fear change."24

Moreover, it would be noxious anathema to democratic principles for a legislative

body to have the ability to bind the actions of future legislative body, considering

that both assemblies are regarded with equal footing, exercising as they do the same

plenary powers. Perpetual infallibility is not one of the attributes desired in a

legislative body, and a legislature which attempts to forestall future amendments or

repeals of its enactments labors under delusions of omniscience.

It might be argued that Section 33 of P.D. No. 1146, as amended, does not preclude

the repeal of the tax-exempt status of GSIS, but merely imposes conditions for such

to validly occur. Yet these conditions, if honored, have the precise effect of limiting

the powers of Congress. Thus, the same rationale for prohibiting irrepealable laws

applies in prohibiting restraints on future amendatory laws. President Marcos, who

exercised his legislative powers in amending P.D. No. 1146, could not have

demanded obeisance from future legislators by imposing restrictions on their ability

to legislate amendments or repeals. The concerns that may have militated his

enactment of these restrictions need not necessarily be shared by subsequent

Congresses.

We do not mean to trivialize the need to ensure the solvency of the GSIS fund, a

concern that has seen legislative expression, even with the most recently

enactedGovernment Service Insurance System Act of 1997.25 Yet at the same time,

we recognize that Congress has the putative authority, through valid legislation, to

diminish such fund, or even abolish the GSIS itself if it so desires. The GSIS may

provide vital services and security to employees of the civil service, yet it is not a

sacred cow that is beyond abolition by Congress if, for example, more innovative

methods are devised to ensure stable pension funds for government employees. If

Congress has the inherent power to abrogate the GSIS itself, then it necessarily has

the ability to inflict less detrimental burdens, such as abolishing its tax-exempt

status. If there could be legal authority proscribing the Congress from enacting such

legislation, such should be sourced from the Constitution itself, and not fromantecedent statutes which were themselves enacted by legislative power.

The Court's position is aligned with entrenched norms of statutory construction.

InDuarte v. Dade,26 the Court cited with approval Lewis' Southerland on Statutory

Construction, which states:

A state legislature has a plenary law-making power over all

subjects, whether pertaining to persons or things, within its

territorial jurisdiction, either to introduce new laws or repeal the

old, unless prohibited expressly or by implication by the federal

constitution or limited or restrained by its own. It cannot bind

itself or its successors by enacting irrepealable laws except whenso restrained. Every legislative body may modify or abolish the

acts passed by itself or its predecessors. This power of repeal

may be exercised at the same session at which the original act

was passed; and even while a bill is in its progress and before it

becomes a law. This legislature cannot bind a future

legislature to a particular mode of repeal. It cannot declare

in advance the intent of subsequent legislatures or the effectof subsequent legislation upon existing statutes. (Emphasis

supplied. )27

The citation is particularly apropos to our present task, since the question for

resolution is primarily one of statutory construction, i.e., whether or not Section 33

of P.D. No. 1146 has been repealed by the Local Government Code. It is evident that

we cannot render effective the amendatory second paragraph of Section 33 as the

RTC did, for by doing so, we would be giving sanction to a disingenuous means

employed through legislative power to bind subsequent legislators to a particular

mode of repeal.

Thus, the two conditionalities of Section 33 cannot bear relevance on whether the

Local Government Code removed the tax-exempt status of the GSIS. The express

withdrawal of all tax exemptions accorded to all persons, natural or juridical, as

stated in Section 193 of the Local Government Code, applies without impediment to

the present case. Such position is bolstered by the other cited provisions of the Local

Government Code, and by the Mactan ruling.

There are other reasons that guide us to construe the Local Government Code in

favor of the City of Davao's position. Section 5 of the Local Government Code

provides the guidelines on how to construe the Code's provisions in cases of doubt,

and they are self-explanatory, thus:

Section 5.Rules of Interpretation.In the interpretation of the

provisions of this Code, the following rules shall apply:

(a)Any provision on a power of a local government unit shall

be liberally interpreted in its favor, and in case of doubt, anyquestion thereon shall be resolved in favor of devolution of
http://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/716?search=

Documents

statcon cases 11.docx