Opinion of the Secretary of Justice No. 217, 1953.pdf

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

extracted text: PINION OF THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE NO. 217, 1953 -The Di}c.ctor Bureau of Posts Mani 1 a Sir: , This is with reference t.J your Jetter of September 16, 1953, requesting my opinion as to whether or not a fraud orde.r may J;>e issued under the provisions of Sections 1982 and 1963 of the Revised Administrative Code age.inst the San Miguel Brewery for conducting it.:1 scheme in which miniature Coca-Cola bottles are distributed in t:hl! · m3.nner and under the conditio"ns described in your letter as follows: ·'Under the cork disc inside some <not a\l) of the CocaCola crown caps is a special marking consisting of the silhouette of a Coca-Cola bottle in a red circle. Five of these specially marked crowns are exchanged with one miniature Coca-Coln bottlc which is an exact replica of the regular Coca-Cola soft drink but is only 2 1/2 inches high. The miniature bottle does not contain Coca-Cola but a harmless colored liquid. Marked crowns can be redeemed with any of the familiar Coca-COia trucks or at the local Coca-Cola bottling plant." Sections 1982 and 1988 of the Revised Administrative Code Provide in part as follows: "SEC. 1982. Fra.ud orders.- Upon satisfactory evidence that any person or company is engaged in conducting any lottery, gift enterprise, or scheme for the distribution of money, or of any real or personaf property by lot, chance, or drawing of any kind, xx x, the Director of Posts may instruct any postmaster or other officer or employee of the Bureau to return to the person depositing same in the mails, with the word 'fraudulent' plainly written or stamped upon the outside cover thereof, a.ny mail matter :;f whatever class mailed by or addressed to any. such person or company or the representative or agent of such person or company. xx x." .. SEC. 1983. Depriv_ ation of use of money order system and telegraphic transfer service.- The Director of Posts may, upon evidence satisfactory to him that any person or company is engaged in conducting any lottery, gift enterprise, or scheme for the distribution of money, or of any i·eal or personal property by lot, cha.nee, 9r drawing of any kind, x xx forbid the issue or payment by .any postmaste1: of any postal money order or telegraphic transfer to said person or company or to the agent of any such person or company, xxx." The purpose of mail fraud orders issued under the above provisions is to prevent the use of the mails as medium fo1· disseminating printed matter which on, grounds of public. policy has been declared to be non-mailable (F<1,rley v. Heininger, 1999, 105 F. 2d. 79, 808 U.S. 587, 84 L. ed. 491). The object is not to interfere with any rights of the people, but to refuse the facilities of the post office establishment to mail matters defined as objectionable by Congress or found to be so by the postmaster general after hearing <Acret v. Harwood, D.C. Cal. 1941, 41 F. Supp. 492>. And lotteries, gift enterprises and other similar schemes are condemned by the statute because of their tendency to inflame the gambling spirit and to corrupt public morals <Com. v. Lund, 15 A. 2d. 839, 143 Pa. Super. 208>. As above provided, a fraud order may be issued against any person or company engaged in conducting a lottery, gift enterprises. or scheme for the distribution of money, or of any real or persona.I property by lot, chance, or drawing of any kind. The question, therefore, may first be asked, what is a lottery? The following definition is found in the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of El Debate vs. Topacio (44 Phil. 278), thus: "The term 'lottery' extends t-0 all schemes for the distribution of prizes by chance, such as policy playing, gift exhibitions, prize concerts, raffles at fair, €tc., and various forms 0£ gambling. The three essential elements of lottery are: First, consideration; second, prize; and third, chance.'' (U.S. vs. Filart and Singson, 30 Phil. SO; U.S. vs. Olsen and Marker, 26 Phil. 395; U.S. vs. Baguio, 89 Phil. 962; Valhalla Hotel Construction Company vs. Carmona., 44 Phil. 288). I believe it the proper aPproach to the resolution of this case to address myself first to what you consider as the controversial point - whether the miniature Coc&-.Cola bottle may be deemed a priz.e in the lottery sense in this particular scheme where the same is being offered. If in the affirmative, then the inquiry can -go deeper to determine whether the elements of chance and consideration are present. As used in connection with anti-lottery laws, the word "prize" compn:hends anything of value ~ained (or, correspondingly, lost) by the operation of chance, or any inequality in nmount or value in a ,;chemc of payment of money 01· other thing of value as a resultcf the use of chance. · The gain need not be large to constitute a priz.e. The inequality may not be great, nor in favor of the- person selected by chance. It ma.y be against him. He need not lose all or gain all. Partial gain (oi: lose in the hope of gain) is sufficient to constitutti a prize (Equitable Loan & Security Co. v. Waring, 4•1 SE 320, 326, 117 Ga. 599, 62 L.R.A. 93>. It is not essential that the prize, if a money one, be a l!pecific amount <Commonwealth V: Wright, 137 Mass. 250, 50 Am. Dec. 306), or that the prize be money <Ste.te v. Hahn, - 72 P. 2d. 459, 105 Mont. 270), or have a fixed market value \New York City Alms House v. American Art Union, 7 NY 228), or that the value be previously fixed (Public Clearing House v. Coyne, 121 F. 927, 48 L. ed. 1092). The element of priz~ may exist in a scheme so arranged as to return to e.i.ch participant something of v:due, or even an tquivalent for all that he pays in <Fitzimmons v. United States, 156 F. 477, 13 L.R.A. [NS] 1095), so that, the fact that · there can be no loss to the participants iu a scheme does not prevent it from being a lottery when' there may be contingent gains rnalfock v. State, 20 A. 184>. It cannot be gainsa.id that the miniaturt: Coca-Cola botties al'c things of valtie. They are not things that come from nowhere but are manufactured at the expense of thousands and thousands of pesos tn the Coca ... Cola Company. Of course you are right in your observation that the value of these bottles should be considered from tho point of view of the general public to whom they are offered as an inducement, and not from the standpoint of the manufacturer. But there cannot be any doubt that those miniatures attract the public and are valued by them, especially the children. The fact that nc fixed monetary value can be attributed to them, since they -arc not regularly sold over the counter, is of no moment for it is not essential that prize in lottery, if other than money, should h&.ve a fixed market value CNew York City Alms House v. American Art Union, supra.). I am thus led to conclude that the miniature Coca-Cola bottles di.stl"ibuted in the manner and under the conditions described in the quoted port-ion of your letter are pri1.es in the statutory sense, which, if coupled with the other elements of chance and consideration, as hereinafter to be discussed, would constitute as a lottery the schemt: in which they are being offered. Let us now turn to the other two elements of a lottery - the element~ of chance and consideration. The inquiry would be much more difficult were I to attempt a reconciliation of t.wo apparently c•mflictiug decisions of the Supreme Court relied upon by you1· Office and the proponents of the Coca-Cola scheme. In the case -of U.S. vs. Oli-en and !Harker (3G Phil. :)95), the facts of which arf· too well-known to require their repetition here in detail, the Supreme Co111·t held that the scheme therein im·olved was not a lottery for the reason tha.t the purchaser of cigarettes obtains full value for his money, and that there was no consideration for the chance to win the prize which was merely incidental: In the later case of El Debate vs. ToJJacio 144 Phil. 278), one of the main issues before the Court was the question uf consideration. To the plaintiff's contention that there was no consideration aS the ps.rticipant received the full value of his money, the Court emphatically said that while t'his is true as rega~·ds persons who subscribe to the El Debate 90 THE LAWYERS JOURNAL b'ebruary ZS, 1954 regardless of the inducement to win a prize, it .. is faUadous as to other persons who subscribe merely to win a prize (and it is to such persons that the scheme is directed>, for a.s to them it means the payment of a sum of money for the consideration of participating a lottery." Rut µrescind ing from the apparent repugnancy between those two decisions, I have decided to pass upon this case in the light of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in the "El Debate'' case, 11.ot only because it is the later decision, but more so for the reasons that, as in the instant. case, it construes the provisions of our Postal Law, while the "Olsen" case involves the application of the Gambling Law. Besides. this Offic!! has, in previous opinions, already stated that the "El Debate" decision is the controlling case in this jurisdiction on whether or not a given scheme constitutes a lottery, gift enterprise, or similar schem~ under the Postal Law (Sec Ops. Sec. of Justice, Nos. 87 & 184, series of 1950>. The a pplicable decision having been fixed and ascertained, I would tic stressing the obvious were I to discuss and belabor he1~in the fact that the element of chance enters into this scheme of the San Miguel Rrewery in the distribution of its miniature Coca-Cola bottles. It has been maintained in some quarters that chance is absolutely wanting as regards those who purchase Coca-Cola. by the case, on lhe assertion an<l upon the assumption that five bottles with marked crowns are invariably among the the twenty:four bottles contained in a case. nut aside from the obvious answer tha.t could be given - that the purchase of Coca-Cola by the case is merely an exception, purchase hr the bottle being the genernl r ule . - suffice it to cite t.he pertinent portion of the decision of the SuprE:me Court that in lottery under lhe Postal Law, •'the element of chance is present even though it may be accompanied by a.n element oi calculation or even of certaint)··" (El Debate vs. Topacio, supr.) Applying, too, the principle enunciated in the " El Debate" decision, I am also of the opinion that the basis of the Supreme Court in concluding that the element of consideration is Jll'esent in the scheme examined and considered in the said ca.se, may also be applied with equal force in the instant cas<'. Persons who buy Coca-Cola merely fo~ the chance to win a miniature C~ca-Cola bottle, not be'4:ausc of their desire for the drink, in effect pay a sum of money for the chance to patticipa.te in the scheme. <See also Ops., SN'. of Justice, Nos. 87 & 184, series of 1950>. Thus, the practice vf a bottler in stamping numbers under some of bottle Ci'OW!l!> and redeeming such crowns in cash in amount of numbers, in order tu advertise its beverages, constitutes lottery within constitutional and statutvry inhibitions. <Try-Me Bottling Co. v. State, 178 So. 231, 235 Ala. ?.07.> It is emphatically argued that to con3titute a. prize within the meaning of the anti-lottery statute, the value of the thing offered as prize must be greater than thr. value of the consideration paid fer the chance of winning the same. And upon this JJl'O position, it is v;g<:irously stressed that a miniature C<iea-Cola. bottle cannot be deemed a pri1.e on the alleged gioun<l that the value of said bottle is such less than the amount th(' public has to pay for the chance of obtaining it. The general premise may be right - that prizt: in lottery must be somethirig of greater value than the amount ventured therefore - but I am unable to subscribe to the conclusion deduced therefrom. Such conclusion ap11ears, to my mind, as basically fallacious and thi: fallcy stems from t he misconception that the public actually risks no Jess than fifty lF50> centavos - the cost of five (5> bottles of Coca-Cola soft drink - as consideration for the chance of ~btaini11g a miniature Coca-Cola bottle. The Coca-Cola soft drink, it should be remembered, has always been sold, both befcre and after the scheme in question was undertaken, at ten <r.10) centavos per bottle. Hence, it is evident that the fifty <P.50) centa.vos refened to by counsel for t he San 1\Jiguel Brewery represents chiefly the cost of five C5 l bottles of the Coca-Cola drink, and only a small 1 1 ortion thereof, uncertain ,:;.nd negligible though it may be, constitutes the consideration haz:lrded for the chance of winning the prized miniature Coca-Cola bottle. But ass11ming1 mllr('o\·er, for the sake of a rgument, that the scheme in questi.'m is not a lottery in the strict lega.I sense, it is at least a "gift enterprise" a.s the term is used in the aforecited provisions of thr Revised Administrative Code. Aga in, I find myself in this connection unable to agree with the theory advanced by the proponents of the scheme that a gift enterprise, to fall within the purview of the statute, must tic iu the form or llaturc of a lotlery with all its essential elements and mhercnt attributes. It. is universally recOgnizcd that for a lottery to exist, all three elcment3 of prize, conside1 ·ation and chance must concur. The statute could have simply mentioned "Lottel'y" as ground for the issuance of a mail fraud order a.nd that alone would be sufficient to embrace within its scope any and all schemes that involve the generally accepted elements of a lottery. But the law docs not confine itself to mere Jottery; it gnes further and mentions "gift enterprise" and "scheme flr the distribution of mo11ey, or of any real or personal property by lot, chance or drawing of :my kind" as among ~hose that may be administratively dealt with thru the issuance of a mail fraud c:rder. Consequently, to adopt the theory of the counsei for the San Miguel Brewery would be to reduce the above.quoted wor<ls to mere superfluities, and would premise the construction of the statute on the unreasonable presumption th:it thf! legisla.tmc has used thos<.: words in vain or left part of its enactment without E ense or mc.>aning. It is <in elementary rule of construction that effect must be given, if possible to every word, clause and sentence of a statute. A i:tatute should be construed 30 that effect is given to all its provisions, so that no part will be inC'pcrativc or superfluous, void or insignificant (Sutherland, Stat, Const., 3rd Ed, Sec. 4705, p. 339'. A "gift enterprise" in a bn1:i.d se11se is defined as a scheme under which presents a rl' given to purchasers of goods as a n inducement to buy <Retail Section. of Chamber of Commerce, etc. v. Ki('ck, 257 NW 493, 128 Neb. 13). In its widest concept. u "gift en:.Crp:·ioo" may or may nc.t involve the clement of chance. Statutes directed against a ll gHt enterprises whether or not the chance element enters into the scl.cme, have been held uncoustitutiona.l as invading property rights anrl the freedom to contract (24 Am. J ur., 474). The term, howl'ver, is used in om· statute in association with t he words "lottery" and ''scheme fo1 · the distribution of xx x by lot, cJiance, or drawing of miy kin<l'', . :m<l in tonsonance with the doctrine of ?10scif1u· a l:lO cifa, that tile 1m•a ning of particular terms in a statute i:;hould be asce1 te.ined by reference to words associatc•rl therewith <Virginia v. Tenn., 148 U.S. 503. 37 L. ed. 537) , the law evidently concerus itself with those species of gift. enterprises that. involve the lottery element of chance. In this restrictetl sense, therefore, a "gift enterprise" may be aptly defined as a schcm1' under which goods ar e sold for f.1 .eil' 11w.rkel value but by way of inducement each purchaser is given n cl>mice to win a. present or wize (Barke1· v. State, 1!)3 SE 605, 56 G. App. 7051. While it may be conceded that prize in stl'ict lottery must be something of greatt r value than the considcrntion risked t hercfol', the rule will not necessarily be true with res11ect to n gift enterprise where. as :nay be reasonably inferred from the definition oi the term, the t hing given as present or prize would ordinarily be of less value than the article bought. The prize may be of insignificant value as compared with the cost .:if the arti~le purchased, but so long as the distributi'l•~ of the pri~.e is dctcl'mined by lot or chance and the pri,w is offered as an inducement to buy, the scheme is a gift entel'prise within the purvitw of t he statute. Jt has also been held on good authority that, while it is impo~sible to lay down <Ill absolute rule as to what constitutes the distinction betwecll lotteries and gift enterprises, a plan will be considered within a statute against gift enterprises if it involves an award by chance without the consideration necessary to constitute the scheme a lottery <Crimes v. State, 235 Ala. I OZ, 178 So 73; Russell V. Equita.Ole Loan & Sec. Co., 129 Ga. 154, 58 SE 88, .:ited in State v. Fox-Great Falls Theater Corpora. tion, 132 P. 2d. 689, 694>. Thus, the operation of a so-called "bank night" by which a theater awal'dcd money, after the showing of a moving picture, by lot and i11 which the public could participate wit hout pe.ying admission 01' without entering the theater is, if not a lottery, at least a gift enterprise involving lottery principle within the meaning of constitutional provisions condemning lotteries and gift enterprises <City of Wink v. Griffith Amuseme11t Co., 100 SW 2d. 695; Sec also Barker "· State, l!J3 SE 605, 5G Ga. App. 706). AlJ things con~idered, it is my opinion that the scheme m question is a l.:ittery, or at least a gift •mtcrprise within the meaning of Sections 1982 :ind 1983 of the Revised Admiuistrative Code. Your query is thcrdore answered in the u.ffinnati\'e. Respectfully,· ROBERTO A. GIANZON Acti1ig Sec1·ctat;1 February 28, 1954 THE LAWYEHS JOURNAL 91 REPUBLIC ACTS <REPUBLIC ACT NO. 900) AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION TWENTY-EIGHT OF REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED FOUR HUNDRED NINE, KNOWN AS THE REVISED CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MANILA. Be it enacted by the s~nate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled: $1'CTION 1. Section twenty-eight of Republic Act Numbered Four hundred nine, known as the Revised Charter of the City of Manila, is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 28. The Bureau of Public Schools.-The Director of Public Schools shall exercise the same jurisdiction and powers in the city as elsewhere in the Philippines, and the city superintendent of schools shall have all the powers and duties in respect to the schools of the city as are vested in division superintendents in respt;Ct to the schools of their divisions. "The Municipal Board shall have the same powers in respect to the establishment of schools in Manila as are conferred by law on municipal councils. "The clerical force and assistants and laborers in the Office of the Superintendent of City Schools !!hall be paid by the city, as well a.s the office expenses for supplies and materials incident ~ cnrrying on said office. The Municipal Board may provide for additional compensations for the Superintendent of City Schools and for other national school officials, teachers and employees in the Division of City SChools so that the Superintendent of City Schools may have a total salary equal to that of a city Department Head of the same importance and the salaries of all other officials and employees in the Division of City Schools performing similar duties and rendering the same kind and amount of work in the city may be equa.lized. For purposes of Republic Act Numbered Six lnmdred sixty, the combined salaries received from the National Government and from the city by the Superintendent of City Schools and other national officiala, teachers and employees in his office shall be considered as their base pay." SECTION 2. This Act shall take effect upon its approval. .Approved, June 20, 1953 <REPUBLIC ACT NO. 770) AN ACT TO CREATE A PURLIC CORPORATION TO BE KNOWN AS THE SCIENCE FOUNDATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND TO DEFINE ITS POWERS AND PURPOSES. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Revl'esentatives of the Philippines in Congress Assembled: Si:CTJON 1. This Act shall be known and cited as ''The Science Foundation Act of the Philippinas". SEC. 2. The Vice President of the Philippines, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the l't'lajority Floor Leader of the Senate, the Majority Floor Leader of the House of Representatives, the Minority Floor Leader of the Senate, the Minority Floor Leader of the House of Representatives, thE! Secretary of Health, the Secretary of Education, the President of the Manila Rotary Club, the President of the Manila Lions' Club, the President of the National Federation of Women's Clubs, th..? President of the Philippine Chamber of Commerce, the President of the Philippine Junior Chamber of Commerce, the President of the American Chamber of Commerce, the President of the Chinese Chamber of CommercP, Manuel V. Arguelles, Conrado Benitez, Agerico B. Sison, Antonio Nubia, Albino Sycip, Jose P. Marcelo, Gwnersir:.do Garcia and Manuel J. Felizardo, all of Manila, Philippines, their associates and successors, are hereby created a body corporate and politic in deed and in Jaw, by the name, style, and title of "The Science Foundation of the Philippines" <hereinafter called the Corporation). Vacancies among the above charter members shall bP. filled, and their associates and successors, shall be elected upon the sponsorship of any two of the charter members and the twothirds secret vote of the others thereof. The principal office of the Corporation shall be in the City of Manila, Philippines. SEC, 3. The said Corporation shall have perpetual succP-ss-ion, with the power to sue and be sued; to hold such 1·eal and personal estate as shall be necessary for corporate purposes, and to receive real and personal property by gift, devise, or bequest; to adopt ;i S('al, and to alter or destroy the same at pleasure; to make a.nd adopt the by-laws, rules and regulations not inconsistent with the laws of the Philippines, and genarally to do all such acts and things (including the establishment of regulations for the election of associates and successors) as may be necessary to carry into effect the provisions of this Act and promote the purposes of said Corporation. SEC. 4. The purposes of this Corporation shall be: (a) To initiate, promote, stimulate, solicit, encourage and support basic and applied scientific research in the mathematical, physical, medical, biological, engineering and other sciences, by means of grants, loans, and other forms of assistance to qualified persons and institutions applying for same; (bl To a.ward scholarships and graduate fellowship in the mathematical, physical, medical, biological, engineering and other sci<=nces; (c) To foster interchange of scientific information among scientists here and abroad; (d) To aid in the establishment. of adequate scientific labor:iio. ries; and (e) To encourage, protect and aid in the organization of science dubs and societies in the schools and colleges of the Philippines. SEC. 5. The governing body of Eaid Corporation shall consist of a Board of Trustees composed of residents of the Philippines. J uan Salcedo, Jr., Camilo Osias, Raul T. Leutel'io, Vidal A. Ta11, M. V. A1·guelles, Miguel Cuaderno, Sr., Agcrir.o B. Sison, Antonio Nubl:i, and Jose P. l\Iarcelo, shall consttitute the first Boa.rd of Truste<..s: Provided, That at all Limes the majority of the succeeding members of the Board of Trustees shaJI be persons holding positions in the Governmc11t. The members of th!" Board of Trustees und('r this charter shall be divided into tw.-, g·roups by lot. The trustees of the first group shall serve for a term of three years, and those of the second group, fo1· six years. Vacancies tha.t may occur in the Board shall be filled, and successo1·s to the first membe1·s of the Board of 'J'rustees, i.hall be elected, by the sponsorship of two charter members and the two-thirds S('Cret vote of t.he remaining charter members thereof. The Board of Trustees shall ha,,e power to make aud to amend the by-laws, and, by o. two-thirds vote of the whole Board at a meeting called for thif: purpose, may authorize and cam:ie to be executed mortgages and liens upon the property of the Corporation. The Board of Trustees may, by resolution passed by a majority .of the whole Board, designate five or more of their number to constitute an executive committee of which a majority shall constitute a qnonon, which committee, to the extent provided in said resolution or in the by-laws of the Corporation, shall have a..'l.d exercise the powers of the Board of Trustees in the managemerA pI the business affairs of the Corporation, and may ha.ve power to authorize the seal of the Corporation to be affixed to all papers which may require it. The Board of Trnstees, by the affirmative rnte of majority of the whole Roard, may appoint any othel' stand. ing committees, and such standing committees shall have and may exercise such powers as shall be conferred or authorized by the by-laws. With the consent in writing and pursuant to an affirmative vote of a majority of the charter members of said Corporation, the Board of Trustees shall have authority to dispose in any manner of the whole property of 'the Corporation. SEC, 6. An annual meeting of the charter members, their associates and successors shall be held once in every year after the year of incorporation, at such time a.nd place as shall be prescribed In the by-laws. Special meetings of the Corporation may be called upon such notice as may be prescribed in the by-laws. The number which shall constitute a quorimi at any annual or special meeting shall be prescribed in the by-la.ws. The Board of Trustees shall have power to hold their meetings and keep the seal, books, documents, and papers of the Corporation withiii. or without the City of Manila. SEC. 7. Any donation or contribution which from time to time may be made to the Science Foundation of the Philippines by the Government or any of its subdivisions, branches, offices, agencit>s, or instrumentalities or from any person or entity, sha.11 be expended by the Board of Trustees in pursuance of this Act. SE:c 8. Any donatioll or contribution which from time to time may be made to the Science Foundation of the Philippine!> shall 92 THE LAWYERS JOURNAL Feb!'uary 28, 1954 be considered allowable deductions on the Income of the donor or giver for income ta.x purposes; and other transactions undertaken !Jy it in p11rsuance of its purposes as provided in section 4 hereof shall be free from any and all taxes. SEC. 9. From and after the passage of this Act, it shall be unlawful for any person within .the jurisdiction of the Philippines to falsely and fraudulently call himself out as, or represent himself to be, a member of or a.n agent for the Science Foundation of the Philippines; and any person who violates any of the provisions of this Act shall Ce punished by imprisonment of not to exceed six months or a fine not exceeding five thouffi!nd pesos, or both, in the discretion of the court. S53. 10. This Act shall take effect upon its approval. Approved, June 20, 1952. <REPUBLIC ACT NO. 896> AN ACT TO DECLARE THE POLICY ON ELEMENTARY EDUCATION IN THE PHILIPPINES e,, it enacted by the Senate a·ud House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assemQ/ed: SECTION 1. This Act shall be known as the "Elemenhwy Education Act of 1953." SEC. 2. In pursuance of the aim of all schools expressed in section five, Article XIV of the Constitution, and as anlplified by subsequent legislation, it shall be the main function of the elementary school to develop healthy citizens ;:if good moral character, equipped with the knowledge, ha.bits, and ideals needed for a happy and useful home and conmmnity life. . SEC. 3. To put into effect t.he educational policy established by this Act, the Department of Education is hereby authorized to revise the elementary-school system on the following basis: The primary course shall be composed of four grades <Grndes I to lVl and the intermediate course of three· grades (Grades V to VJI). Pupils who are in the sixth grade of the time this Act goes i11to effect will not be required to complete the seventh grade before being eligible to enroll in the first year of the secondary school: P1·ovidcd, That they shall be allowed to elect to enrol m Grade Vll it they so desire. SEC. 4. The Seoretary of Education may, with the approval of the President, authorize, in the primary grades, the holding of one clmos, moming and afternoon. under one teacher. In the intermediate grades, classes may be authorized 011 the basis of two classes under three teachers or of three classes under five teachers. Where there is not enough number of children to meet the minimum requirements for organizing one-grade or two-grade combined classes, the Secretary of Education ma.y authorize the organization of classes with more than two grades each. ·SEC . 5. It shall be compulsory for every parent or guardian or other person having custody of any child to enroll such child " in a public school, the next school year following the seventh birthday of such child, and such child shall remain in school until the completion of an elementary education: Provided, however, That this compusory attenda.nce shall not b<J required in any of the follou•ino cases: First, when the child enrolls in Ol" transfers to a private school; Second, when the distance from the home of the child to the nearest public school offering the grade to which he belongs 1£::xceeds three kilometers or the :i;aid public school is not safely or cc.nveniently aceP..ssible to the child: Third, when such child is mentally or physically defective in which case a certificate of a Culy licensed 1ihysician or competent health worket· shall be required; Fourth, when, on account of indigence, the child cannot a.Hord to be in school; Fifth, when the child cannot be accommodated because of excess enrolment; and Sixth, when such child is being rei;ulal"ly instructed by its parent or guardian or private tutcn·, if qualified to teach the several branches of study required to be taught iu the public schools, under conditions that will be prescribOO by the Secretary o{ Education, Sfi3. 6. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated out of any funds in the National Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as niay be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act.. S53 .7. All acts or parts of nets inconsistent with the provi.sions of this Ael are hereby repealed. S53. 8. This Act shall take effect upon its approval. Approved, June 20, 1953. PAY YOUR INCOME TAX It's high time you think of your income tax. Lest, you forget. there arc new regulations governing this tax and for your benefit this paper is printing here the latest dope there is to it from the bureau of iuternal revenue. Here goes: "In connection with the filing of the 1953 income tax returns of both individuals and co1·porations, the following are being released for the information aJHI. guidance of the taxpayers concerned: 1. Rates of individual income tax- The rates on individual in· come tax for the ye&r Hl53 have reverted to the HJ49 rate as provided for under Republic Act No. 82 which took effect on January 1, 1946, because the effectivity of the rates provided under Republic Act No. 590, which were enforced from January 1, 1950 to December 31, 1952, has not bec11 extended by Congress. The rates applicable to income of individuals during the year lV53 are as follows: "For the ht 1'200 3% "f"2,000 lo P4,000 6% "'4,000 to f6,000 9% "P6,000 to PlO,OOU 13% "Pl0,000 to r20,ouo 17% "P20,000 to P30,000 22% "PS0,000 to N0,000 26% "'f40,000 to P50,000 28% "P50,000 to PG0,000 30% "f60,000 to P70,000 :32% "P'70,000 to P'80,000 34% "P80,000 to f90,000 36% ··f"9o,ooo to P100,000 38% "Pl00,000 lo P150,000 40% "Pl50,000 to r200,ooo 42% "f200,000 to P300,000 44'/v ··r:mo,ooo to NOO,UOU 46% "P400,000 to r500,ooo 48';0 "1'500,000 lo f"700,000 50'/c "!'700,000 to Pl,000,000 52% ··r1,ooo,ooo to r2,ooo,uoo 55'1& "P'2,000,000 op 6U'!o "2. Personal exemption- The personal exemption for single individual is Pl,800 and for a married person or head of a fa. mily, P3,000. The additional exemption for each child below 21 years of age is P600. No proportional exemption is allowed except when the ;,iatus of the taxpayer chaugcs during the taxable year by reason of of his death, "3. Requirement for filing - All citizens and resident aliens llaving a gross income of 1'1,800 or more for the year 1953 are required to file income tax returns on or before March 1, 1954. "4. Corporations-Corporations are required to pay for the year 1953 the rate of 20% on the first Pl00,000 net income and 28% on the excess over Pl00,000 of their net income. These rates have been extended UJJ to December 31, 1954 by Republic Act No. 868. "5. Withholding taxes on non-resident aliens and non-resident foreign corporations-The rates of withholding taxes are 24% for non-resident foreign corporations and 12 % for non-resident alien individuals, unless the income of the latter from Philippine sources exceeds Pl6,500 in which case the graduated rates under Section 21 of the National Internal Revenue Code will be applied. "6. Claiming the 10% optional standard deduction-ln lieu of all deductions allowed by law, an individual other than a nonl esidcnt alien may claim an optional standard deduction of 10% of the gros.s income of Pl,000-whichever is the lesser. The standard optional deduction cannot exceed Pl,000. Only one kind of deduction ean be claimed, either the itemized deduction or the optional. Both cannot be claimed. If both are claimed, whichever is greater will be allowed. "Taxpayers are requested to file their income tax returns as early as possible and not to wait for the last da.y for filing the same in order to avoid the rush and crowd· and in order to help the Bureau in processing their returns earlier. Likewise, it is CCu1tli11ued 011 page 94) ,)' February 28, 1954 THE LAWYERS JOUH.NAL
Date: 1954
Rights