You are on page 1of 31

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW – CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS

A. Common Provisions

SECTION 1. The Constitutional Commissions, which shall be


independent, are the Civil Service Commission, the
Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit.

SECTION 2. No Member of a Constitutional Commission shall,


during his tenure, hold any other office or employment. Neither
shall he engage in the practice of any profession or in the
active management or control of any business which in any
way be affected by the functions of his office, nor shall he be
financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract
with, or in any franchise or privilege granted by the
Government, any of its subdivisions, agencies, or
instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries.

Even in Section 7 prescribes that it is the SC who shall have appeal by


certiorari over the decisions of the constitutional commissions.
Remember, that basically, the decisions of the constitutional
commissions can be reviewed only if tainted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. That springs from
its character of independence.

Class, independence is highligted in Section 2. I have discussed the


important case here of Funa v. Duque. A law designating a
commissioner of civil service who sat as a director of Philhelth and GSIS,
that is a violation of Section 2 which disallows any commissioner from
holding any other office “PERIOD”. Note the justification of the
prohibition… it will undermine their independence.

Please remember, even they are independent, they are not exempt from
civil service law requirements.

SECTION 3. The salary of the Chairman and the


Commissioners shall be fixed by law and shall not be
decreased during their tenure.

1
SECTION 4. The Constitutional Commissions shall appoint
their officials and employees in accordance with law.

SECTION 5. The Commission shall enjoy fiscal autonomy.


Their approved annual appropriations shall be automatically
and regularly released.

SECTION 6. Each Commission en banc may promulgate its


own rules concerning pleadings and practice before it or before
any of its offices. Such rules however shall not diminish,
increase, or modify substantive rights.

SECTION 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote


of all its Members any case or matter brought before it within
sixty days from the date of its submission for decision or
resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision
or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or
memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or by
the Commission itself. Unless otherwise provided by this
Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each
Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari
by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a
copy thereof.

For Sections 6 and 7, I discuss a little more. I have a question, do all


constitutional commissions have quasi-legislative powers? The answer is
no. The case of TIDCORP v. Civil Service Commission is instructive
here. You know, the law creating the TIDCORP granted a statutory
exemption to it from the classification standard authority of the CSC. So
na establish ang TIDCORP so it was referred to the CSC for processing.
So what prevails, the independence of the commissions or the statutory
exemption? The latter prevails. Because even if the CSC is independent,
it remains an administrative body. Hence the law creating the statutory
exemption is ultra vires, unconstitutional. Justice Brion discussed the
basis or source of the quasi-legislative power of the civil service
commission. It is Section 3 of Article IX-B which provides that the Civil
Service Commission, as the central personnel agency of the gove’t, shall
establish a career service and adopt measures to promote moale,
efficiency, integrity, responsiveness, progressiveness, and courtesy in the
civil service. This is the source of the quasi-legislative authority of the

2
Commission.

How about the COMELEC? What is the source of its authority? It is the
power to administer and enforce all laws in the conduct of elections. This
is Article IX-C, Section 2(1).

Of the 3 commissions, it is the Commission on Audit who is given the


rule-making authority. This is provided for by Article IX-D, Section 2(2).
Note the 3 areas of authority: (1) define the scope of its audit and
examination, (2) establish the techniques and methods required therefor,
and (3) promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations,
including those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular,
unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditutres, or
uses of government funds and properties. Ito ung tinatawag na critical
functions of the commission on audit.

Class, bakit hindi clear kung merong authority ang COMELEC at COA to
disallow or not public expenses? Nagvavary ang decisions. Like in the
case of ___(?) nag create ang senado ng temporary clerk position. Na
disallow ng Commission on Audit ung salaries attached to that position.
Sabi ng SC, “hoy, political question yan, hindi mo pwede idisallow”.
Matute v. Hernandez, bumili ang gobyerno ng karne. Hindi finollow ung
rules on bidding. Dinisallow ng COA. Sinuspend ng SC ung disallowance
ng COA. Well, the case of Guevara v. Gimenez. Ang ginawa ng Central
Bank, nag retain ng services ng special counsel and agreed to pay
retainer’s fees and appearances fees. Na approve ng COA ung retainer fee
but disallowed the appearance fee. Sabi ng SC na hindi pwede ung
ganun. Nasa discretion na yan ng Central Bank. So you see, nag vavary,
ngayon wala nang problema. It is as simple as this ung critical function
ng COA. Authorized ang COA to prescribe rules. So if the disbursement
of public expenditure is contrary to the rules, it can be disallowed.
Ganun lang ka simple.

Next question, do all commissions exercise quasi-judicial power? Yes,


this is in connection with Sections 6 & & of Article IX-A. Note: Section 6,
authorized sila to promulgate their own rules of procedure as long as it
shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. So here’s the
question here no, so we relate this to Article VIII, Section 5(5). Ang SC
meron yang disapproval authority when it comes to rules of procedure of
special courts and quasi-judicial bodies. Among these special courts is

3
the SB. May this disapproval authority extend to the rules of procedure
of the constitutional commissions, which I repeat, are independent? THE
RULE OF THUMB: WHEN IN DOUBT, SUSTAIN THE SC. Of course, it
has. It has done so several times already notwithstanding the
independence of these commissions. Ang isa pang argument jan is if the
SC finds that the promulgated rules diminish, increase, or modify
substantial rights, shempre nanjan ang power to disapprove ng SC.

Another reason why we say that the commisions have quasi-judicial


power is because of Section 7. They are given 60 days to resolve judicial
matters brought before them. Appeal is to the SC by way of certiorari
UNLESS provided otherwise by law. Sa Civil Service, ano ang mode of
appeal? Consistent with RA 7902 and Rule 43, it is with the Court of
Appeals. How about the COA and the COMELEC? It is RULE 64 of ROC.
What does Rule 64 say? “You apply Rule 65” In turn, what does Rule 65
say? “You go back to Rule 64 for the deadline” because the deadline is 30
days. Ang Rule 65 kasi is 60 days.

Aratuc v. COMELEC (1979), and certiorari ng Section 7 is not error of


law, it is grave abuse of discretion. Sabi ng SC, because of the
independence of the constitutional commissions. Pero since then, as
authorized by the Constitution, “unless otherwise provided by this
constitution or by law”. Bakit kasi hindi nalang ginawang “Rule 65
provided that with respect to COA and COMELEC, the deadline is 30
days.”

What I would like to emphasize in Article IX is the concept of Staggering


of Terms. Remember the terms of the Constitutional Commissioners.

The Chairman and the Commissioner shall be appointed by the President


witht eh consent of the Commission on Appointments for a term of 7
years without reappointment. Of those first appointed, the Chairman
shall hold office for 7 years, a Commissioner for 5 years, and another
Commissioner for 3 years, without reappointment. Appointment to any
vacancy shall be only for the unexpired term of the predecessor. In no
case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or
acting capacity.

4
The operation of the rotational plan requires two conditions, both
indispensable to its workability: (1) that the terms of the first 3
commissioners should start on a common date; and (2) that any vacancy
due to death, resignation or disability before the expiration of the term
should obly be for the unexpired balance of the term.

A commissioner who resigns agter serving in the Commission for less


than 7 years is eligible for an appointment to the position of Chairman
for the unexpired portion of the term of the departing chairman. Such
appointment is not covered by the ban on reappointment, provided that
the aggregate period of the length of service as commissioner and the
unexpired period of the term of the predecessor will not exceed 7 years
and provided further that the vacancy in the position of Chairman
resulted from death, resignation, disability or removal by impeachment.
The Court clarifies that “reappointmentmeans a movement to one and
the same office. On the other hand, an appointment involving a
movement to a different position or office would constitute a new
appointment and, hence, not, in the strict legal sense, a reappointment
barred under the Constitution.

Any member of the Commission cannot be appointed or designated in a


temporary or acting capacity (Funa v. The Chariman of the
Commission on Audit).

The promotional appointment is only valid if the vacancy would be


accidental and not absolute in character. Examples of absolute vacancies
are: expiration of the term, retirement. Accidental vacancies, you have
resignation, disability, removal.

SECTION 8. Each Commission shall perform such other


functions as may be provided by law.

B. The Civil Service Commission

SECTION 1. (1) The Civil Service shall be administered by the


Civil Service Commission composed of a Chairman and two
Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the
Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least
thirty-five years of age, with proven capacity for public

5
administration, and must not have been candidates for any
elective position in the elections immediately preceding their
appointment.

(2) The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed


by the President with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments for a term of seven years without
reappointment. Of those first appointed, the Chairman shall
hold office for seven years, a Commissioner for five years, and
another Commissioner for three years, without reappointment.
Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired
term of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be
appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.

Civil Service Commissioners are not required to be college degree


holders.

SECTION 2. (1) The civil service embraces all branches,


subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the
Government, including government-owned or controlled
corporations with original charters.

This is the matter of jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. I


tackled this already when we discussed Liban v. Gordon. Remember that
the jurisdiction of the CSC extends even to GOCCs with original charters.

Guys, meron na tayong tinatawag na Government Instrumentalities with


Corporate Powers (GICPs). It refers to intrumentalities or agencies of the
government, which are neither corporations nor agencies integrated
within the departmental framework, but vested by law with special
functions or jurisdiction, endowed with some if not all corporate powers,
adminestering special funds, and enjoying operational authority usually
through a charter including, but not limited to, the following:
1. Manila International 5. Laguna Lake Development
Airport Authority Authority
2. Philippine Ports Authority 6. Bases Conversion and
3. Philippine Deposit Development Authority
Insurance Corporation 7. Cebu Port Authority
4. Metropolitan Waterworks 8. Cagayan de Oro Port
and Sewerage System Authority

6
9. San Fernando Power Administration
Authority 11. Asian Productivity
10. Local Water Utilities Organization

Remember that they are still GOCCs hence they are covered by the Civil
Service Commission. The same can be said with the Government
Financial Institutions (GFIs). It refers to financial institutions or
corporations in which the government directly or indirectly owns majority
of the capital stock and which are either: (1) registered with or directly
supervised by the BSP; or (2) collecting or transacting funds or
contributions from the public and places them in financial instruments
or assets such as deposits, loans, bonds and equity including, but not
limited to, the GSIS and the SSS.

GOCC is defined under RA 10149.

(m) Government Financial Institutions (GFls) refer to financial


institutions or corporations in which the government directly or
indirectly owns majority of the capital stock and which are either: (1)
registered with or directly supervised by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas;
or (2) collecting or transacting funds or contributions from the public and
places them in financial instruments or assets such as deposits, loans,
bonds and equity including, but not limited to, the Government Service
Insurance System and the Social Security System.

(n) Government Instrumentalities with Corporate Powers


(GICP)/Government Corporate Entities (GCE) refer to instrumentalities or
agencies of the government, which are neither corporations nor agencies
integrated within the departmental framework, but vested by law with
special functions or jurisdiction, endowed with some if not all corporate
powers, administering special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy
usually through a charter including, but not limited to, the following: the
Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA), the Philippine Ports
Authority (PPA), the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC), the
Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS), the Laguna
Lake Development Authority (LLDA), the Philippine Fisheries
Development Authority (PFDA), the Bases Conversion and Development
Authority (DCDA), the Cebu Port Authority (CPA), the Cagayan de Oro

7
Port Authority, the San Fernando Port Authority, the Local Water Utilities
Administration (LWUA) and the Asian Productivity Organization (APO).

(o) Government-Owned or -Controlled Corporation (GOCC) refers to any


agency organized as a stock or nonstock corporation, vested with
functions relating to public needs whether governmental or proprietary in
nature, and owned by the Government of the Republic of the Philippines
directly or through its instrumentalities either wholly or, where
applicable as in the case of stock corporations, to the extent of at least a
majority of its outstanding capital stock: Provided, however, That for
purposes of this Act, the term "GOCC" shall include GlCP/GCE and GFI
as defined herein.

(2) Appointments in the civil service shall be made only


according to merit and fitness to be determined, as far as
practicable, and, except to positions which are policy-
determining, primarily confidential, or highly technical, by
competitive examination.

Understand the distinction between carrer and non-career services.


Carrer positions are characterized by: (1) entrance based on merit and
fitness to be determined as far as practicable by competitive
examinations, or based on highly technical qualigications; (2)
opportunity for advancement to higher carrer positions; and (3) security
of tenure. On the other hand, non-career positions are characterized by:
(1) entrance on bases other than those of the usual tests of merit and
fitness for the career service; and (2) tenure which is limited to a period
specified by law, or which is coterminous with that of the appointing
authority or which is coterminous with that of the appointing authority
or subject to his pleasure, or which is limited to the duration of a
particular project for which purpose employment was made.

Remember that the primary confidential, highly technical, and policy


determining (?) employees are exempt from the eligibility examination
precisely because of their special talents.

Is it possible for a career civil servant to be such even without taking or


passing the civil service exam? Yes. Read the case of Civil Service
Commission v. Pillila Water District.

8
(3) No officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed
or suspended except for cause provided by law.

Now let us discuss the disciplinary action. Now I emphasize this, even for
private acts, pwede filan ng disciplinary action. Every disciplinary action
has two stages. The first refers to the preliminary investigation stage.
This is otherwise referred to as the fact finding stage. The object is to
determine whether or not prima facie evidence exists to warrant the
investigation. Upon such finding, kapag merong prima facie case, pwede
na tayo mag proceed sa second stage. You cannot go to the second stage
WITHOUT the prior preliminary investigation. Jurisdictional yan. That
will lead to the filing of a “formal charge” or a “notice of charge”. Ano ang
distinction ng dalawa?

In formal charge is an accusation which stems from a complaint filed


from within the organization. A notice of charge is an accusation which
stems from a complaint filed by an outsider.

Upon the filing of the formal charge or the notice of charge, pwede na
mag initiate ng motion for the order of preventive suspension. Note that
the preventive suspension here is for the period of 90 days. Sa local
governments, the preventive suspension is 60 days; sa OMB, the
preventive suspension is 6 months.

Second point, remember that the order of preventive suspension is only a


preventive measure.

Third, remember the grounds: (1) dishonesty; (2) oppression; (3) grave
misconduct; (4) neglect in the performance of duty; (5) administrative
offenses which are punishable by dismissal from the service on its
second or 3rd offense; or (6) if there are reasons to believe that the
respondent is guilty of charges which would warrant his removal from
the service.

Remember, class, that there are 2 reasons for preventive suspension: (1)
to prevent the respondent from tampering the evidence; and (2) influence
potential witnesses.

May an order of preventive suspension be the subject of a Motion for

9
Reconsideration? The answer is no. Can it be the subject of an appeal?
The answer is yes.

Next point, may an order of preventive suspension be annulled? The


answer is yes. There are 4 reasons for annuling the order of suspension.
First, if it was issued by one who is not authorized to issue. Second, it it
was issued not on the basis of any of the grounds. Third, if it was issued
without a formal charge or a notice of charge. Forth, if the period in the
order of preventive suspension exceeds the allowable period, then it can
be annulled as to the excess.

Lets say tuloy tuloy na. Tapos promulgation is guilty. If the penalty is not
more than fine or suspension of 30 days, final na un, executory na un
without prejudice to a Rule 65 petition, of course. But if the penalty is
removal, it shall only become executory after the affirmation of the
cabinet secretaries. Upon such affirmation, removed na without
prejudice to appeal. Akyat siya sa civil service commission. Lets say,
again, appeal all the way to the SC. Eh na reinstate ng SC. Is he entitled
to backwages? May the respondent, who was preventively suspended, be
entitled to back salaries. NO BACK SALARIES CAN BE GRANTED for the
period covered by the preventive suspension pending investigation. What
about preventive suspension PENDING APPEAL? Class, this is the case
of Gloria v. CA.

Preventive suspension pending investigation, as already discussed, is not


a penalty but only a means of enabling the disciplining authority to
conduct an unhampered investigation. On the other hand, preventive
suspension pending appeal is actually punitive although it is in effect
subsequently considered illegal if respondent is exonerated and the
administrative decision finding him guilty is reversed. Hence, he should
be reinstated with full pay for the period of the suspension. Thus, 47(7)
states that respondent shall be considered as under preventive
suspension during the pendency of the appeal in the event he wins. On
the other hand, if his conviction is affirmed, his suspension becomes part
of the final penalty of suspension or dismissal Gloria v. CA.

Now let us talk about the second kind of preventive suspension. This is
the preventive suspension pending appeal. This is the case of Gloria v.

10
CA. Remember I told you na kapag affirmed na ng secretary ang removal
penalty, out na siya. Class, from that time that he was removed upon
affirmation of the cabinet secretary until his final exoneration, he can
still be considered as preventively suspended pending appeal. Is he
entitled to back salaries during that preventive suspension pending
appeal? The answer is yes. PROVIDED: two factors must concur—(1) he
must be exonerated, he must be acquitted. Please remember in this
regard, a reduction of a penalty is not an acquittal. (2) The preventive
suspension must be unjustified. Ano ba ibig sabihin ng it must be
unjustified? Eh diba ang rule is upon affirmation of the cabinet secretary
eh out na siya? Oh how can that preventive suspension be unjustified?
Eh that is allowed. Ang batas naka saad that the period of preventive
suspension for civil service proceedings is only 90 days such that any
preventive suspension beyond 90 days is unjustified. Final question here:
up to how many years can he claim for backwages? Dati 5 years ang
maximum. The March 8 2017 case of Baculi v. Office of the President,
FULL BACK SALARIES, so start of the preventive suspension pending
appeal until final reinstatement.

Diniscuss natin kanina ung Section 7, Article IX-A any decision, order, or
ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on
certiorari… Okay, so ito ang COA, unanimous ang decision upholding the
dismissal of an employee. Saan ang appeal ng employee na ito? And what
mode? Diba nakalagay jan na all final decision, orders or rulings of the
constitutional commissions shall be appealed to the SC by certiorari,
modified Rule 64. No class ah. That is not correct. The appeal is to the
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION dahil disciplinary proceding ito.

(4) No officer or employee in the civil service shall engage,


directly or indirectly, in any electioneering or partisan political
campaign.

(5) The right to self-organization shall not be denied to


government employees.

May civil servants form unions? Yes. Can they engage in concerted
activities? Yes. Can they execute collective bargaining agreement with
their employers in government? Yes. Can they provide salary increases in
the collective bargaining agreement? The answer is no. Can they engage

11
in strikes? The answer is no. Dito nagkakatalo ang rights ng civil
servants and authority of the state. Ito ung rule of thumbs ko para
sainyo: if there is a question in the bar regarding the exercise by the civil
servants of their right of lawful assembly, you detect from the problem
‘would it have resulted to a work distruption?’ Because if yes, then they
can be disciplined, it can be illegal. If walang work distruption, that’s
freedom of expression.

3 cases to discuss this point, 2 of which are GSIS. Winston Garcia who is
a general manager met with the employees of the GSIS and as usual,
nagalit ang mga empleyado ng GSIS so they walked out and proceeded
with a strike. It was declared illegal. Their dismissal was sustained.

Contrast it to the other GSIS case. Leaders were subjected to disciplinary


proceedings. Nagkaroon ng drama. On their way to the venue for the
investigation, the rank and file and the members of the union lined up to
express their support to their union leader. Dito, temporary lang ung
distruption. It was sustained as lawful exercise of freedom of expression.

Another case is Davao Water District v. Aranjuez. The employees here


were required to attend a Sunday fun run. They were made to wear
uniform tshirts na naka prenda clamor for incentives. They were
disciplined. But they were merely exercising freedom of expression. They
were there due to to management prerogative.

The matter of political partisan activity. Please remember, civil servants


can express their preferences. What is unlawful for them is to engage in
partisal political activities. Be reminded that these activities are defined
in the Omnibus Election Code such as soliciting funds for the candidate
of their choice, organizing rallies, speaking for their candidates. So not
all expression of support for a candidate should be considered as
partisan political activity. The case of Seneres v. COMELEC. It so
happens that the LRT administrator was also the president of the buhay
party list. So what he did was that he signed and submitted the list of
nominees for his buhay party list, a sectoral party. He was charged with
engaging in political partisan activity. Sabi ng SC na mere signing and
submitting is not partisan political activity. It is not one of those acts
enumerated in the Omnibus Election Code.

12
The act of Robles, acting BUHAY President and Chief of the LRTA, of
submitting a nomination list for BUHAY cannot, without more, be
considered electioneering or PPA within the context of the Election Code,
not being among the following acts:
1. Forming organizations, associations, clubs, committees, or other
groups of persons for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or
undertaking any campaign for or against a candidate
2. Holding political caucuses, conferences, meetings, rallies, parades,
or other similar assemblies, for the purpose of soliciting votes
and/or undertaking any campaign or propaganda for or against a
candidate
3. Making speeches, announcements or commentaries, or hilding
interviews for or against the election of any candidate for public
office
4. Publishing or distributing campaign literature or materials
designed to support or oppose the election of any candidate
5. Directly or indirectly soliciting votes, pledges or support for or
against a candidate.

Understand that there is a special or a reiteration of PPA proscription in


the constitution available against soldiers. This is indicated in Article XVI
Section 6. Delikado un. But remember Cailles v. Bonifacio, this
prohibition is applicable only to active soldiers. This is not applicable to
reservists.

It was evident that the intention was to continue by incorporation in


the Constitution the then existing prohibition against officers and
employees of the Civil Service from engaging in political or electoral
activities except to vote, for the reason that public officers and
employees in the Civil Service are servants of the State and not the
agents of any political group. Members of the armed forced were not
included in the original draft but finally it was thought advisable by
the Constitutional Convention to extend the prohibition to them.
Including only those in the active service was contemplated. Upon
the other hand, a contrary interpretation would lead to the
disqualification of all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of

13
20 to 50 years—not specially exempted by the National Defense
Act—from holding elective public office or otherwise taking part in
any election except to vote and this result, for obvious reasons,
should be avoided.

(6) Temporary employees of the Government shall be given


such protection as may be provided by law.

Even temporary employees have security of tenure.

SECTION 3. The Civil Service Commission, as the central


personnel agency of the Government, shall establish a career
service and adopt measures to promote morale, efficiency,
integrity, responsiveness, progressiveness, and courtesy in the
civil service. It shall strengthen the merit and rewards system,
integrate all human resources development programs for all
levels and ranks, and institutionalize a management climate
conducive to public accountability. It shall submit to the
President and the Congress an annual report on its personnel
programs.

This is the source of the quasi-legislative power.

SECTION 4. All public officers and employees shall take an


oath or affirmation to uphold and defend this Constitution.

SECTION 5. The Congress shall provide for the


standardization of compensation of government officials and
employees, including those in government-owned or controlled
corporations with original charters, taking into account the
nature of the responsibilities pertaining to, and the
qualifications required for their positions.

SECTION 6. No candidate who has lost in any election shall,


within one year after such election, be appointed to any office
in the Government or any government-owned or controlled
corporations or in any of their subsidiaries.

May elective officials accept other appointed offices? The answer is yes.

14
Incompatible office yan so they may forfeit their elective seat. Please
remember that in Section 94 (or 91) of the Local Government Code, hindi
sakop dito ung losses sa barangay election. Siguro ung justification jan
eh ung Cruz v. COMELEC, kasi non-partisan dapat ung election sa
barangay.

SECTION 7. No elective official shall be eligible for appointment


or designation in any capacity to any public office or position
during his tenure.

Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions


of his position, no appointive official shall hold any other office
or employment in the Government or any subdivision, agency
or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.

I repeat my question, may an elective official be appointed? The answer is


yes. Note that elective officials can be appointed or designated to other
public offices or positions during their term. They would, upon
appointment be considered as having forfeited their elective posts.

For the 2nd paragraph, I reiterate my discussion on Article VII, Section 13


which includes the matter of Civil Liberties Union v. Executive
Secretary. Basta ex officio, authorized by law, primarily related to the
principal functions, and no additional salaries. That would be consistent
with the second paragraph. Note that the second paragraph is not
applicable to the President, VP, Member of the Cabinet, and their
deputies or assistants, who can hold other offices only if allowed under
the Constitution.

SECTION 8. No elective or appointive public officer or employee


shall receive additional, double, or indirect compensation,
unless specifically authorized by law, nor accept without the
consent of the Congress, any present, emolument, office, or
title of any kind from any foreign government.

Pensions or gratuities shall not be considered as additional,


double, or indirect compensation.

Now the matter of additional, indirect, or double compensation. Obvious

15
nalman ung reason for this particular law. Note that double
compensation may be allowed if authorized by law. The case of Veloso v.
Commission on Audit is important here. Three consecutive counselor
terms in Manila. After his term, he was given cash rewards by the City of
Manila. Na scrutinize ng COA ung amounts given to him. Eh same
amount lang daw kasi dun sa kinita nila while he was sitting eh. Double
compensation, unconstitutional.

The ordinance authorized the conferment of the EPSA to the former 3-


term councilors and, as part of the award, the qualified city officials were
to be given “retirement and gratuity” which is a free gift, a present, or
benefit of pecuniary value bestowed without claim or demand, or without
consideration. Undoubtedly, the above computation of the awardees’
reward is excessive and tantamount to double and additional
compensation. This cannot be justified by the mere fact that the
awardees have been elected for three consecutive terms in the same
position. Neither can it be justified that the reward was given as a
gratuity at the end of the last term of the qualified elective official. The
fact remains that the remuneration is equivalent to everthing that the
awardees received during the entire period that he served as such
official. (Cajiuat v. Mathay as cited in Veloso v. Commission on Audit)

Dimagiba v. Espartero. If memory serves, nag retire siya as ERC


employee. Na appoint siya as ERC commissioner. Nag retire ulit siya. Na
appoint ulit, nag retire ulit. Hindi naman kasama sa proscription ung
retirement benefits pero sabi ng SC na hindi naman tama ung 3
retirement benefits. Dapat only one, the highest salary will be the basis
of the pension.

C. The Commission on Elections

SECTION 1. (1) There shall be a Commission on Elections


composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be
natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their
appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders of a
college degree, and must not have been candidates for any
elective position in the immediately preceding elections.
However, a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be

16
Members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the
practice of law for at least ten years.

(2) The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed


by the President with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments for a term of seven years without
reappointment. Of those first appointed, three Members shall
hold office for seven years, two Members for five years, and
the last Members for three years, without reappointment.
Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired
term of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be
appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.

SECTION 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the


following powers and functions:

(1) Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to


the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum,
and recall.

Please remember that Section 2 is the mother of all powers of the


COMELEC. You remember the case of Bagumbaya-VNP Movement v.
COMELEC. Aba nakalagay jan sa batas you must issue voters receipt.
The COMELEC was required to issue voter’s receipts because that is
their power, to enforce the law. To address the concern of COMELEC
against vote buying, may solution ang SC, just place trash bin outside.
Voters cannot bring outside the receipts.

Article XI(C), Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution empowered the


Commission of Elections to "[e]nforce and administer all laws and
regulations relative to the conduct of an election." One of the laws that
the Commission on Elections must implement is Republic Act No. 8436,
as amended by Republic Act No. 9369, which requires the automated
election system to have the capability of providing a voter-verified paper
audit trail. xxx. By setting the minimum system capabilities of our
automated election system, the law intends to achieve the purposes set
out in this declaration. A mechanism that allows the voter to verify his or
her choice of candidates will ensure a free, orderly, honest, peaceful,

17
credible, and informed election. The voter is not left to wonder if the
machine correctly appreciated his or her ballot. The voter must know
that his or her sovereign will, with respect to the national and local
leadership, was properly recorded by the vote-counting machines. xxx.
The law is clear. A "voter verified paper audit trail" requires the following:
(a) individual voters can verify whether the machines have been able to
count their votes; and (b) that the verification at minimum should be
paper based. (Bagumbayan-VNP Movement, Inc. v. Commission on
Elections)

It is true that the Commission on Elections is given ample discretion to


administer the elections, but certainly, its constitutional duty is to
"enforce the law." The Commission is not given the constitutional
competence to amend or modify the law it is sworn to uphold. Section
6(e), (t), and (n) of Republic Act No. 8436, as amended, is law. Should
there be policy objections to it, the remedy is to have Congress amend it.
xxx. We see no reason why voters should be denied the opportunity to
read the voter's receipt after casting his or her ballot. There is no legal
prohibition for the Commission on Elections to require that after the
voter reads and verifies the receipt, he or she is to leave it in a separate
box, not take it out of the precinct. Definitely, the availability of all the
voters' receipts will make random manual audits more accurate.
(Bagumbayan-VNP Movement, Inc. v. Commission on Elections)

Comelec also has the power to accept and process certificate of


candidacy. Please remember, this is still the rule, the acceptance and
processing of certificate of candidacy is still considered a ministerial duty
of the Comelec.

The Comelec, pursuant to this general power, postpone or declare a


failure of election. Let me just point out this 2016 case Abayon v. HRET.
Does the HRET have the authority to annul an election? Yes! This is
grounded from Comelec’s power to declare a failure of election. The
annulment of election certainly goes into the jurisdiction of the tribunal
to determine whether there was an election crime. If it pronounces that
there was no valid election, it can annul the results of an election.

18
The Court agrees that the power of the HRET to annul elections differ
from the power granted to the COMELEC to declare failure of elections.
The Constitution no less, grants the HRET with exclusive jurisdiction to
decide all election contests involving the members of the House of
Representatives, which necessarily includes those which raise the issue
of fraud, terrorism or other irregularities committed before, during or
after the elections. To deprive the HRET the prerogative to annul
elections would undermine its constitutional fiat to decide election
contests. The phrase "election, returns and qualifications" should be
interpreted in its totality as referring to all matters affecting the validity
of the contestee's title. Consequently, the annulment of election results is
but a power concomitant to the HRET's constitutional mandate to
determine the validity of the contestee's title. The power granted to the
HRET by the Constitution is intended to be as complete and unimpaired
as if it had remained originally in the legislature. Thus, the HRET, as the
sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of members of the House of Representatives, may annul
election results if in its determination, fraud, terrorism or other electoral
irregularities existed to warrant the annulment. Because in doing so, it is
merely exercising its constitutional duty to ascertain who among the
candidates received the majority of the valid votes cast. To the Court's
mind, the HRET had jurisdiction to determine whether there was
terrorism in the contested precincts. In the event that the HRET would
conclude that terrorism indeed existed in the said precincts, then it could
annul the election results in the said precincts to the extent of deducting
the votes received by Daza and Abayon in order to remain faithful to its
constitutional mandate to determine who among the candidates received
the majority of the valid votes cast. Moreover, the passage of R.A. No.
7166 cannot deprive the HRET of its incidental power to annul elections
in the exercise of its sole and exclusive authority conferred by no less
than the Constitution. It must be remembered that the COMELEC
exercises quasi-judicial, quasi-legislative and administrative functions.
xxx. Thus, the COMELEC exercises its quasi-judicial function when it
decides election contests not otherwise reserved to other electoral
tribunals by the Constitution. The COMELEC, however, does not exercise
its quasi-judicial functions when it declares a failure of elections
pursuant to R.A. No. 7166. Rather, the COMELEC performs its
administrative function when it exercises such power. (Abayon v. House
of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Daza)

19
In the matter of declaring a failure of election, if the election was not
conducted or completed on the scheduled date, and if there was a failure
in the transmission of the results, those would be grounds for the
declaration of a failure of election. PROVIDED that the failure is attended
by FORCE, VIOLENCE, INTIMIDATION, and THREAT. PROVIDED
FURTHER that the failure of election in a particular precinct will affect
materially the final outcome of the results of any election contest. Class,
let us say that there are 100 polling precincts. There was force, there was
violence in only 2 precincts. Such that the results will not materially
affect the total outcome of the votes.

The Comelec can also tackle pre-proclamation controversies. Please


remember, it is pre-proclamation if it involves or would invalidate the
canvassing. Basta canvassing ang issue, pre-proclamation controversy
yan. So you will see the grounds to declare a failure of election here in
the case of Presbitero Jr. v. COMELEC. Remember ha, there is a rule
for the composition of the board of canvassers. A departure from the rule
will not necessarily invalidate the board of canvassers constitution.

A failure of election may be declared only in the three instances stated in


Section 6of the OEC: the election has not been held; the election
has been suspended before the hour fixed by law; and the
preparation and the transmission of the election returns have
given rise to the consequent failure to elect, meaning nobody
emerged as the winner. Furthermore, the reason for such
failure of election should be force majeure, violence, terrorism,
fraud or other analogous causes. Finally, before the COMELEC can grant
a verified petition seeking to declare a failure of election, the
concurrence of 2 conditions must be established, namely: (1) no
voting has taken place in the precincts concerned on the date fixed by
law or, even if there was voting, the election nevertheless resulted in a
failure to elect; and (2) the votes cast would affect the result of the
election. Presbitero Jr. v. COMELEC

I should mention dun sa failure of election ung rescheduling of election.


In the recent 2015 pronouncement, as long as there is substantial
compliance with the date, papayagan ung rescheduling. In that case, if

20
memory serves, 50 days dapat ung reschedule, nangyari ung reschedule
6 months after but because of technical problems. Basta there is
substantial good faith to comply with the law, the rescheduling of
election will be sustained.

Other grounds for a pre-proclamation controversy, kunwari materially


effecting incomplete ung collection returns, that also goes into
canvassing. If it can be shown that substituted or fraudulent returns are
used or sought to be used, that goes into canvassing as well. If it can be
shown that the election returns were falsified, that goes into canvassing.
Within the jurisdiction of the Comelec.

Lets go back to the case of Abayon v. HRET, nagkaroon ng barilan at


nakawan ng balota, its not canvassing but it goes into the validity of an
election. Ang remedy jan is election protest and not a pre-proclamation
case.

(2) Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests


relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all
elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate
jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal
officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or
involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of
limited jurisdiction.

Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on


election contests involving elective municipal and barangay
offices shall be final, executory, and not appealable.

As to the quasi-judicial authority of the Comelec, we go to paragraph 2.


Relate this also to Section 3—any quasi-judicial matter to be tackled by
the comelec shall at its first instance be handled by either divisions, the
en bancs jusrisdiction is only be appeal through a motion for
reconsideration, jurisdictional ito. Remember that the Comelec has
original jurisdiction over contests pertaining to the election for
qualifications for regional, provincial, and city elections. It has appellate
jurisdiction over municipal election contests decided by courts of general
jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction over barangay election cases
decided by courts of limited jurisdiction provided that its decision on
appeal, with respect to barangay contests, shall be FINAL and

21
EXECUTORY. Remedy? Rule 65 Certiorari.

Remember that, in relation to Section 3 of Article 9-C, may a comelec


division exercise certiorari jurisdiction over election proceedings pending
in the RTC? The answer is yes. Diba RTC is municipal election courts,
appealable to comelec through a division. So yes, pwede in its appellate
jurisdiction. May the en banc, which has appellate jurisdiction over a
division, may it exercise certiorari jurisdiction over the division? The
answer is NO. A motion for admission of special affirmative defenses was
denied. Interlocutory, pwede ba mag certiorari sa en banc? No, it should
be reserved and raised as an error upon appeal to the en banc. May you
file a petition for certiorari from a decision interlocutory direct to the SC,
by-passing the en banc? The answer is yes if the interlocutory, or matter
of incident, involves grave abuse of discretion on the part of the division
then you do not go to the en banc kasi walang certiorari doon. You go to
the SC. Kunwari, napaka simple, nanjan ung deadline, hindi sinunod ng
comelec ung deadline, that’s grave abuse of discretion. This is Rule 65
certiorari. NOT RULE 64. Because the 64 mode is from the en banc
determinations of the comelec.

(3) Decide, except those involving the right to vote, all


questions affecting elections, including determination of the
number and location of polling places, appointment of election
officials and inspectors, and registration of voters.

(4) Deputize, with the concurrence of the President, law


enforcement agencies and instrumentalities of the
Government, including the Armed Forces of the Philippines, for
the exclusive purpose of ensuring free, orderly, honest,
peaceful, and credible elections.

Now we go to the other powers in section 2, deputize law enforcement


agencies of the government including the AFP upon the concurrence of
the President.

(5) Register, after sufficient publication, political parties,


organizations, or coalitions which, in addition to other
requirements, must present their platform or program of
government; and accredit citizens’ arms of the Commission on
Elections. Religious denominations and sects shall not be

22
registered. Those which seek to achieve their goals through
violence or unlawful means, or refuse to uphold and adhere to
this Constitution, or which are supported by any foreign
government shall likewise be refused registration.

Financial contributions from foreign governments and their


agencies to political parties, organizations, coalitions, or
candidates related to elections constitute interference in
national affairs, and, when accepted, shall be an additional
ground for the cancellation of their registration with the
Commission, in addition to other penalties that may be
prescribed by law.

Note the general proscriptions here These are generally reiterated in


Section 6 of RA 7941

Section 6. Removal and/or Cancellation of Registration. - The


COMELEC may motu proprio or upon verified complaint of any interested
party, remove or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of
any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition on any
of the following grounds:
1. It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association
organized for religious purposes;

2. It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;

3. It is a foreign party or organization;

4. It is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign


political party, foundation, organization, whether directly or
through any of its officers or members or indirectly through third
parties for partisan election purposes;

5. It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating


to elections;

6. It declares untruthful statements in its petition;

23
7. It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or

8. It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or fails


to obtain at least two percentum (2%) of the votes cast under the
party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections for the
constituency in which it has registered.

(6) File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative,


petitions in court for inclusion or exclusion of voters;
investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of
violations of election laws, including acts or omissions
constituting election frauds, offenses, and malpractices.

Does the Comelec have sole authority to prosecute election offenses? No.
This sole authority was given only to it on the basis of the Omnibus
Election Code. But please remember the Comelec shares concurrent
authority with the DOJ for the institution of election offenses.

Remember that the Comelec at its own instance may file petitions for
inclusions or exclusion of voters. I have a little problem here. The
comelec can determine the number of polling places, etc, and also the
registration of voters PROVIDED that it shall not abridge the right to
vote. Lets say X, when he applies as a registered voter, tinignan siya eh
mukhang European kaya na deny ung application. But if the comelec
denies the registration, is that not really deciding on his right to vote?
Well, you have to remember this, that determination in the context of
registration of vote is only preliminary because there are petitions for
inclusions and exclusion of voters to be decided by the regular courts.

(7) Recommend to the Congress effective measures to minimize


election spending, including limitation of places where
propaganda materials shall be posted, and to prevent and
penalize all forms of election frauds, offenses, malpractices,
and nuisance candidacies.

(8) Recommend to the President the removal of any officer or


employee it has deputized, or the imposition of any other
disciplinary action, for violation or disregard of, or

24
disobedience to its directive, order, or decision.

(9) Submit to the President and the Congress a comprehensive


report on the conduct of each election, plebiscite, initiative,
referendum, or recall.

SECTION 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or


in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in
order to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-
proclamation controversies. All such election cases shall be
heard and decided in division, provided that motions for
reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the
Commission en banc.

SECTION 4. The Commission may, during the election period,


supervise or regulate the enjoyment or utilization of all
franchises or permits for the operation of transportation and
other public utilities, media of communication or information,
all grants, special privileges, or concessions granted by the
Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality
thereof, including any government-owned or controlled
corporation or its subsidiary. Such supervision or regulation
shall aim to ensure equal opportunity, time, and space, and
the right to reply, including reasonable, equal rates therefor,
for public information campaigns and forums among
candidates in connection with the objective of holding free,
orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.

A little discussion on Section 4. I have already discussed this in the


context of freedom of expression in the case of 1-UTK v. Comelec, the
matter even in GMA-7 v. Comelec.

The constitution grant of supervisory and regulatory powers to the


Comelec over franchises and permits to operate, through seemingly
unrestrained, has its limits. The Comelec’s constitutionally delegated
powers of supervision and regulation do not extend to the ownership per
se of PUVs and transport terminals, but only to the franchise or permit to
operate the same. There is a marked difference between the franchise or

25
permit to operate transportation for the use of the public and the
ownership per se of the vehicles used for public transport 1-UTK v.
Comelec.

There is no question that the comelec is the office constitutionally and


statutorily authorized to enforece election laws but it cannot exercise its
powers without limitations – or reasonable basis. It could not simply
adopt measures or regulations just because it feels that it is the right
thing to do, in so far as it might be concerned. It does have discretion,
but such discretion is something that must be exercised within the
bounds and intent of the law. The Comelec is not free to simply change
the rules especially if it has consistently interpreted a legal provision in a
particular manner in the past. If ever it has to change the rules, the
same must be properly explained with sufficient basis. GMA-7 v.
Comelec

A comelec resolution founded on law requiring all newspapers of general


circulation to reserve ½ of a page per edition to be used by comelec as
space for announcements. Remember class that this is EMINENT
DOMAIN because the newspaper space is private property which cannot
be taken without just compensation. You contrast that with the second
case, ung all radio and television stations shall give 30 mins of airtime
for comelec to use. In that case, remember that the airways are owned by
the state. Therefore, it can be regulated by the state. That is justified.

SECTION 5. No pardon, amnesty, parole, or suspension of


sentence for violation of election laws, rules, and regulations
shall be granted by the President without the favorable
recommendation of the Commission.

SECTION 6. A free and open party system shall be allowed to


evolve according to the free choice of the people, subject to the
provisions of this Article.

SECTION 7. No votes cast in favor of a political party,


organization, or coalition shall be valid, except for those
registered under the party-list system as provided in this
Constitution.

Note that block voting is not allowed, except for party-list

26
representatives.

SECTION 8. Political parties, or organizations or coalitions


registered under the party-list system, shall not be
represented in the voters’ registration boards, boards of
election inspectors, boards of canvassers, or other similar
bodies. However, they shall be entitled to appoint poll
watchers in accordance with law.

SECTION 9. Unless otherwise fixed by the Commission in


special cases, the election period shall commence ninety days
before the day of the election and shall end thirty days after.

Question, can you change this period? It is congress which defines and
prescribes punishments for election offenses. The character of election
offenses is that they were committed during election period. Such that if
it is not committed during the election period, it is not an election
offense.If the comelec extends the period, in a way, they are determining
the character of the offense. Sabi ng SC, that is not amendment, it is
ONLY the comelec which determines, not the congress, when the election
period shall be or when it shall last.

As a general rule, the period of election starts at 90 days before and ends
30 days agter the election date. This rule, however, is not without
exception. Under these same provisions, the Comelec is not precluded
from setting a period different from that provided thereunder. In this
case, the comelec fixed the election period for the may 10 2010 elections
at 120 days before and 30 days after the day of the election. We find this
period proper as we find no arbitrariness in the comelec’s act of fixing an
election period longer than the period fixed in the constitution. Aquino v.
COMELEC.

SECTION 10. Bona fide candidates for any public office shall
be free from any form of harassment and discrimination.

SECTION 11. Funds certified by the Commission as necessary


to defray the expenses for holding regular and special

27
elections, plebiscites, initiatives, referenda, and recalls, shall
be provided in the regular or special appropriations and, once
approved, shall be released automatically upon certification by
the Chairman of the Commission.

D. Commission on Audit

Power and its duty to audit all public expenses or use of public property
as may be done by the government, agencies, including goccs with its
own charter, and post-audit basis.

The matter of the post-audit prerogative. Sabi ng SC, kung gusto ng COA
ng pre-audit yan, it is subject to the call of COA. It is not bout to conduct
post-audit only.

The next point is the final Funa vs. Meco. Alam mo, wala naman tayong
diplomatic relations with Taiwan and Republic of China. There are
Filipinos who are working there. So si President Ramos who devised a
sneaky method for having diplomatic ties without having diplomatic ties,
he established the Manila Economic Cooperation Office. This is a private
corporation registered under the SEC. Tinira ni Funa, dapat daw subject
ito to COA. Sabi ng Court, NO! but here’s the qualification, the MECO
has executed a Memoranda of Agreement with the government of the
release of funds for the protection of our Filipino workers abroad. As an
entity, it was not subject to COA but the use and the possession of those
funds for and in behalf of the government are subject to COA,
examination and audit.

In the case of Funa vs MECO, the Supreme Court held that MECO is not
a GOCC nor a government instrumentality because it is not owned by the
PH government. It is a sui generis private entity - a non-governmental
non-stock corporation. Although it is entrusted with a governmental
function to facilitate the country’s unofficial relations in Taiwan, it is not
entirely a government instrumentality. Thus, not all accounts of MECO
are subject to the auditing power of CoA.

Having said that, MECO should be subjected to the auditing of COA as


regards its collection of verification and consular fees. Pertinent is the

28
provision of the Administrative Code, Section 14(1), Book V thereof,
which authorizes the COA to audit accounts of non–governmental
entities “required to pay xxx or have government share” but only with
respect to “funds xxx coming from or through the government.” The said
fees collected by MECO are receivables of DOLE.

As to the verification fees: Under Section 7 of EO No. 1022, DOLE has


the authority to collect verification fees. But it entered into a series of
MoA with MECO authorizing the latter to collect such fees since the PH
does not have an official post in Taiwan.

As to the consular fees: The authority behind “consular fees” is Section


2(6) of EO No. 15, s. 2001. The said section authorizes the MECO to
collect “reasonable fees” for its performance of consular functions.
Evidently, and just like the peculiarity that attends the DOLE
“verification fees,” there is no consular office for the collection of the
“consular fees.” Thus, the authority for the MECO to collect the
“reasonable fees,” vested unto it by the executive order (EO No. 15, s.
2001)

CONCLUSION
The MECO is not a GOCC or government instrumentality. It is a sui
generis private entity especially entrusted by the government with
the facilitation of unofficial relations with the people in Taiwan
without jeopardizing the country’s faithful commitment to the One
China policy of the PROC. However, despite its non–governmental
character, the MECO handles government funds in the form of the
“verification fees” it collects on behalf of the DOLE and the “consular fees”
it collects under Section 2(6) of EO No. 15, s. 2001. Hence, under
existing laws, the accounts of the MECO pertaining to its collection
of such “verification fees” and “consular fees” should be audited by
the COA.

I have discussed the critical functions of COA when we tackled its quasi-
rule making authority.

SECTION 1. (1) There shall be a Commission on Audit


composed of a Chairman and two Commissioners, who shall
be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of

29
their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, certified
public accountants with not less than ten years of auditing
experience, or members of the Philippine Bar who have been
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years, and must
not have been candidates for any elective position in the
elections immediately preceding their appointment. At no time
shall all Members of the Commission belong to the same
profession.

(2) The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed


by the President with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments for a term of seven years without
reappointment. Of those first appointed, the Chairman shall
hold office for seven years, one Commissioner for five years,
and the other Commissioner for three years, without
reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for
the unexpired portion of the term of the predecessor. In no
case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a
temporary or acting capacity.

SECTION 2. (1) The Commission on Audit shall have the


power, authority, and duty to examine, audit, and settle all
accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and
expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in
trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any of its
subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including
government-owned or controlled corporations with original
charters, and on a post-audit basis: (a) constitutional bodies,
commissions and offices that have been granted fiscal
autonomy under this Constitution; (b) autonomous state
colleges and universities; (c) other government-owned or
controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; and (d) such
non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity, directly
or indirectly, from or through the Government, which are
required by law or the granting institution to submit to such
audit as a condition of subsidy or equity. However, where the
internal control system of the audited agencies is inadequate,
the Commission may adopt such measures, including
temporary or special pre-audit, as are necessary and
appropriate to correct the deficiencies. It shall keep the general

30
accounts of the Government and, for such period as may be
provided by law, preserve the vouchers and other supporting
papers pertaining thereto.

(2) The Commission shall have exclusive authority, subject to


the limitations in this Article, to define the scope of its audit
and examination, establish the techniques and methods
required therefor, and promulgate accounting and auditing
rules and regulations, including those for the prevention and
disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive,
extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures, or uses of
government funds and properties.

SECTION 3. No law shall be passed exempting any entity of


the Government or its subsidiary in any guise whatever, or
any investment of public funds, from the jurisdiction of the
Commission on Audit.

A little highlight here because it was asked in the bar. No entity shall be
exempt from the jurisdiction of the COA even special investments of
government. Noong panahon ni Marcos, there was a presidential decree
excempting the pagcor from COA. This provision is exactly to avoid
situations like that. Remember the case of Petitioner Organization v.
Executive Secretary. Sinubject to COA examination ung shares of stock
sa UCPB which were purchased by the government using coconut levy
funds. Sabi ng UCPB hindi naman daw subject to COA examination
because those are private shares of stocks. Sabi ng SC, private, but
public funds were used and that is covered by COA examination.

SECTION 4. The Commission shall submit to the President and


the Congress, within the time fixed by law, an annual report
covering the financial condition and operation of the
Government, its subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities,
including government-owned or controlled corporations, and
non-governmental entities subject to its audit, and recommend
measures necessary to improve their effectiveness and
efficiency. It shall submit such other reports as may be
required by law.

31