Case Digest (G.R. No. 156982)
Facts:
National Amnesty Commission v. Commission on Audit, Juanito G. Espino, Director IV, NCR, Commission on Audit, and Ernesto C. Eulalia, Resident Auditor, National Amnesty Commission, G.R. No. 156982, September 08, 2004, the Supreme Court En Banc, Corona, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner National Amnesty Commission (NAC) was created by Proclamation No. 347 (March 25, 1994) to receive, process and review amnesty applications; its composition included three presidentially appointed commissioners and the Secretaries of Justice, National Defense and Interior and Local Government as ex officio members. After initial participation by the three ex officio members, each delegated attendance to designated representatives who, beginning December 12, 1994, were paid honoraria and per diems.
On September 19, 1997 the Commission on Audit (COA) issued COA Memorandum No. 97-038, directing auditors to disallow payments of additional compensation or remuneration to cabinet secretaries, their deputies and assistants, or their representatives, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary. Acting on that directive, NAC resident auditor Ernesto C. Eulalia disallowed honoraria totaling P255,750 for the period December 12, 1994 to June 27, 1997; the National Government Audit Office (NGAO) upheld the disallowance in NGAO Decision No. 98-006 (September 1, 1998), and notices of disallowance were issued against the representatives named (total P255,750).
Despite these rulings, NAC adopted Administrative Order No. 2 (new Implementing Rules and Regulations of Proclamation No. 347) on April 28, 1999 (approved by the President on October 19, 1999). Section 1, Rule II provided that the ex officio members “may designate their representatives to the Commission” and that such representatives “shall be entitled to per diems, allowances, bonuses and other benefits as may be authorized by law.” NAC relied on this administrative order in challenging the auditor’s disallowance before COA, but COA (COA Decision No. 2001-144 dated July 26, 2001, and COA Decision No. 2003-026 dated January 30, 2003) affirmed the NGAO ruling and declared the provision conferring pay on representatives to be ultra vires.
On March 14, 2003, NAC filed the present petition for review under Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure seeking annulment of the COA decisions. NAC argued, inter alia, that (1) COA Memorandum No. 97-038 required publication under Article 2 of the Civil Code; (2) COA misapplied paragraph 2, Section 7, Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution; (3) the memorandum was wrongly applied to representatives who were app...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did COA Memorandum No. 97-038 require publication under Article 2 of the Civil Code to be valid and effective?
- Was COA correct in invoking the constitutional prohibitions (para. 2, Section 7, Article IX-B and Section 13, Article VII) to disallow honoraria and per diems to the NAC ex officio members’ representatives?
- Could the NAC representatives — appointive officials below Assistant Secretary rank who were designated (not appointed) — lawfully receive per diems, honoraria or other allowances?
- Was Section 1, Rule II of Administrative Order No. 2 validly promulgated to authorize payment to representatives, and could NAC’s administrative rule alter the constitutional and statutory prohibitions against additional compensation?
- Could the representatives act as de facto officers or substitute for the ex ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)