Title
National Amnesty Commission vs. Commission on Audit
Case
G.R. No. 156982
Decision Date
Sep 8, 2004
COA disallowed honoraria for NAC ex officio members' representatives, citing constitutional prohibitions on double compensation; SC upheld COA, nullifying NAC's Administrative Order No. 2.
Font Size:

Case Summary (G.R. No. 156982)

Petition Overview

  • The petition seeks to annul two decisions of the Commission on Audit (COA) regarding the disallowance of honoraria payments to representatives of ex officio members of the National Amnesty Commission (NAC).
  • The NAC was established by Proclamation No. 347 on March 25, 1994, and is responsible for processing amnesty applications.
  • The NAC consists of a Chairperson, three regular members appointed by the President, and three ex officio members from the Departments of Justice, National Defense, and Interior and Local Government.

Background of the Case

  • After initial meetings, the ex officio members delegated their responsibilities to representatives who received honoraria starting December 12, 1994.
  • The NAC's resident auditor disallowed these payments on October 15, 1997, citing COA Memorandum No. 97-038.
  • The total disallowed amount was P255,750 for the period from December 12, 1994, to June 27, 1997.

Administrative Order No. 2

  • On April 28, 1999, the NAC issued Administrative Order No. 2, which allowed ex officio members to designate representatives entitled to per diems and allowances.
  • The NAC invoked this order in its appeal to the COA, which was ultimately unsuccessful.

Grounds for Petition

  • The NAC contended that the COA committed grave abuse of discretion by:
    1. Implementing COA Memorandum No. 97-038 without required notice and publication.
    2. Misapplying constitutional provisions to disallow honoraria.
    3. Incorrectly applying the memorandum to appointive officials below Assistant Secretary rank.
    4. Exceeding its mandate by declaring the Administrative Order null and void.
    5. Disallowing honoraria based on the representatives' lack of authority.

COA's Legal Basis

  • The COA maintained that there is no legal basis for granting honoraria to the representatives, emphasizing its constitutional mandate to ensure proper use of government funds.
  • Article IX-D of the Constitution grants the COA broad auditing powers over all government entities.

COA Memorandum No. 97-038

  • Issued on September 19, 1997, this memorandum directed the disallowance of additional compensation to cabinet members and their representatives, following a Supreme Court ruling in the Civil Liberties Union case.
  • The memorandum does not require publication for validity, as it is an internal directive rather than a law.

Interpretation of Constitutional Prohibitions

  • The Supreme Court has clarified that the prohibition against holding multiple offices applies strictly to cabinet members and their assistants, who cannot receive additional compensation for ex officio roles.
  • The distinction between appointment and designation is crucial; representatives were designated, not appointed, and thus not entitled to additional compensation.

COA's Authority to Reopen Accounts

  • The COA is authorized to review settled accounts within three years, as per Section 52 of Presidential Decree No. 1445.
  • The government is not estopped by errors made by its agents, allowing for corrective actions.

Administrative Order's Validity

  • The COA ruled that the NAC's Administrative Order No. 2 could not authorize payments that are otherwise prohibited by law.
  • The order allows for representation but does not grant decision-making authority or entitlement to compensation.

De Facto Officer Argument

  • The NAC's claim that representatives are de facto off...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.