G.R. No. 210314 - Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas vs. Commission on Audit

Case Summary (G.R. No. 210314)

BSP’s Objection and COA’s Affirmation of Implied Repeal

BSP disputed the AOMs, contending that RA 7656 (a general law) could not repeal impliedly RA 7653 (a special law governing BSP). Nonetheless, COA’s Decision No. 2010-042 (Mar. 23, 2010) held that Section 2(d) of RA 7656 impliedly repealed Section 43 of RA 7653, directing Notice of Charge for unpaid dividends. BSP’s motion for reconsideration was denied in Resolution No. 2011-007 (Jan. 25, 2011).

Supervening Compromise Agreement and Its Scope

While maintaining its implied repeal ruling, COA acknowledged a P9.312 billion settlement for 2003–2006 dividends under an MOA executed Jan. 27, 2011, among BSP, COA, and the Department of Finance. The MOA closed out unpaid dividends for those years and provided that parties “diligently work towards a mutually acceptable and legal arrangement for subsequent dividend payments.”

COA’s Extension of Ruling to Future Dividends

Despite settling 2003–2006, COA’s Resolution No. 2011-007 went on to declare that “for the years 2007 onwards, BSP must compute net earnings undiminished by any reserve.” COA informed BSP on July 15, 2011, that this ruling was final and binding. Decision No. 2012-154 and Resolution No. 2013-214 reiterated with finality that BSP may not deduct any reserves for future dividends.

Issues and Petition for Certiorari

BSP filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari, arguing that:

The MOA superseded COA’s implied repeal ruling for post-2006 dividends.
COA lacks power to interpret law with unassailable finality.
COA disregarded BSP’s constitutional independence and charter powers.
RA 7656 did not impliedly repeal BSP Charter §§ 43–44.
COA’s dividend-computation rulings are inconsistent and vague.
RA 7656 is inapplicable during BSP’s 25-year transition under RA 7653 § 132(b).

Court’s Ruling on COA Jurisdiction and Finality

Under the 1987 Constitution and the Administrative Code, COA has authority to resolve questions of law in auditing government entities, but its rulings do not create binding precedent and remain subject to judicial review. A void ruling—such as one on future dividends not yet audited—does not attain finality. COA’s extension of its implied repeal pronouncement to post-2006 dividends exceeded its jurisdiction and is void.

BSP’s Status under RA 7656 and Applicability of Its Charter

BSP is not a GOCC as defined in RA 7656, which applies only to entities organized as stock or non-stock corporations. BSP’s charter establishes it as a unique, constitutionally-mandated, fiscally and administratively autonomous central monetary authority. Consequently, RA 7653, not RA 7656, governs BSP’s computation of net profits and dividend remittances.

Doctrine of Implied Repeal and Legislative Intent

Repeals by implication are disfavored and require clear, irreconcilable conflict between statutes. RA 7656’s general dividend requirement cannot impliedly repeal RA 7653’s specific reserve-setting authority absent manifest legislative intent to do so. The 2019 amendment of RA 7653 by RA 11211—which reaffirms BSP’s power to set aside reserves “notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary”—confirms that Congress never intended RA 7656 to override BSP Charter § 43.

Amendment of Section 43 and Confirmatio