October 24, 2019
5 years: The new appointee to that, will only be able
First Part
We also learned that the CHR is not part of the 3
constitutional commissions. Now, in the case of
Ifurung vs. Carpio-Morales,
the court defined what a commission is. Because the issue is
the applicability of Rotational Plan to the Office of the
Ombudsman. (Katong rotational plan sa 3 (Constitutional
Commissions), applicable basa ombudsman?)
But the Court said that it’s not a commission. A Commission is
a board or commission officially appointed and empowered to
perform certain acts or exercise certain jurisdiction.
Commissions are composed of members, so it’s a collegial
body, where decision nailahanggi reach is done through
consensus, majority of the body.
But that is not applicable to the Office of the Ombudsman
because it is governed by one individual, and that is the
Ombudsman.
The rotational plan: What is the import?
Nganongnaay rotational plan ningmga constitutional
commissions nato? The requirement in the Constitution.
Tanawonninyosa Constitution… Ang start sa term sakatong
first nagipang appoint sa Constitutional Commissions is
staggered. Ang 1st is to serve 7 years, the next is 5 and then
the next is 3. But the Subsequent appointments will enjoy the
7 year term. Which is angnahitabo is that every 3 years, there
would be a new commissioner. Para every 3 years,
magappointsi president ng commissioner.
So that’s the point no? Para dilinimomacontrolangisaka
commission by appointing all of the members during his term
The Constitution adopted a regular rotation or cycle in the
membership of the Constitutional Commissions; by having
subsequent members appointable only once every 3 years.
The intention to have only one position vacant every 3 years
[5:02], so that NO PRESIDENT CAN APPOINT MORE
THAN 1 COMMISSIONER, thereby preserving and
safeguarding the independence and impartiality of the
commission as a body.
For the operation of this Rotational Plan to succeed, or to
exist in the first place, the Following Rules must be present:
1. That the terms of the 3 commissioners should start
at a common date: perodilisilasabaysabay mag
expire angmga appointments. Kay katonguna, si
chairman: 7 years. Ang next: 5 years; ang next, kay
3 years.
So definitely, mas earlier magexpireang appointment
ni 3rd appointee. Pulihandiayni new appointee, who
will now enjoy a 7 year term. Ang second appointee,
mag expire pudiyahang appointment after 5 years,
taposilisdannagihaponsyani new appointee with a 7
year term. So karun, bantug staggered angilahang
term, so dili ma-appoint all at once by the same
president.
2. Any vacancy due to death, resignation, or disability
before the expiration of the term of the
commissioner; For example na [taichik???] (patay)
after 2 years, unya 7 years angiyang term, naa pay
to serve 5 years; dilipwedenasi new appointee will be
given 7 years as a new fresh period because
mabunkagnakaronang term. So karon,
dapatkungunsaang term nanabilinatongnamatay, na
disable, or nagresignna commissioner, maolangpud
tong i-enjoy ni new appointee para mapreserveang 7
years rotational scheme.
Let’s go the particular commissions. Let’s first start with
Civil Service Commission.
Makita natosyasaArticle IX-B
Sec. 1, IX-B provides that “The Civil Service shall be
administered by the Civil Service Commission, composed of 1
Chairman + 2 Commissioners (total: 3 lang in the Civil
Service Commission) (Requirements): 1) Who shall be natural
born citizens, and 2) at the time of their appointment, at least
35 years old, 3) with proven capacity for public
administration, 4) and must not have been candidates for any
elected position in the elections immediately preceding their
appointment.
Now, pag appoint sailaha, naa pay requirements insofar as
their confirmation is concerned? Yes. The Chairman and
commissioners shall be appointed by the president upon the
consent of the CA for a term 7 years without reappointment.
Because para ma insulate sila from presidential influence,
muagisila screening body which is the Commission of
Appointments (CA) para naapu’y check and balances ang
Legislative Department. Giappointganini President, but di
makapasasa CA, then dilipwede… Kailangani-approve syasa
CA.
Now, of those first appointed, the chairman shall hold office
for 7 years, a commissioner for 5 years, then another
commissioner for 3 years without reappointment.
So this provision talks about the Rotational Scheme, and
also the Prohibition against Reappointment
(Reapportment??) .In other words, if commissioner naka,
nag serve naka for X number of years, you cannot be
reappointed anymore as a commissioner under the same
commission. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for
the unexpired term of the predecessor to preserve the
Rotational Scheme. In no case shall any member be
appointed designated in a temporary or in an Acting Capacity.
This last sentence emphasizes the independence of the
Constitutional Commissions. Kung Acting or Temporary
Capacity ka, you are beholden to the discretion or the whims
of the appointing authority. (Syaangmagbuotsaimuha. “You
know what, you’re no longer following my directives,
tanggalonnatika, unsa man ka, temporary appointee langka”)
NO. Dapat permanent ang appointment ni Constitutional
Commissioners, as they are supposed to be Independent.
So dilisilamacontrol by the executive, by making their
positions subject to the approval or the continuing whim of
this appointing authority.
Naapudsilayprohibition: The 1) spouse and relatives by
consanguinity or affinity within the 4th Civil Degree of the
President shall not, during his tenure, be appointed as
members of the Constitutional Commission. (Dilipwede
because dapat independent ang Constitutional Commission)
So the Civil Service Commission is composed of
October 24, 2019
 1 Chairman; and
 2 Commissioners
What are the Qualifications?
 Natural Born
 At least 35 years of age at the time of the
appointment
 Proven Capacity for Public Administration
 Not a candidate in Election Immediately preceding
Appointment
Term of Office?
 7 years without reappointment
What Is the Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission?
The Civil Service Commission checks
kungkinsabaninggipangappointsa Government offices: Are
they Qualified? Nameetbanilaangmga qualifications required
by that position?
So silaangnagasala.
The Constitution grants the CSC administration over the
entire Civil Service. The Civil Service embraces every branch,
agency, division, and instrumentality of the government,
including GOCCs; and the Civil Service is classified into Career
and Non-Career service positions.
Career and Non-Career Positions.
Career Positions are characterized by their 1) entrance by
the usual tests of merit and fitness, and 2) tenure which is
limited to a period specified by law,… co terminus with the
appointing authority or subject to his pleasure, limited to the
duration of a particular project.
Non-Career Position includes elective officials with their
personal and confidential staff. This means that these elected
officials and their staff are, nevertheless, even if elected by
the people, are subject to the rules of the Civil Service
Commission. So if mag prescribe ang Civil Service ng Uniform
+ Office Hours, we cannot deviate from that Civil Service. It is
evident that the CSC has been granted by the Constitution
and the and the Admin Code, the Jurisdiction over Civil
Service Commission over the Government, whether career or
Non-Career.
Barcelona v. Lim [11:56]
This talks about the Rule-making powers of the Civil
Service Commission. Isa nasaiyangmga powers ay ang mag
promulgate ug rules of proceeding. Ilahang rules to govern
the Civil Service, increase its efficiency, etc.
What happened here was that ni-appeal syasa Civil Service
Commission, but surreptitiously daw gi-amend sa civil service
commission angilang rules, so angtanang penalty naiyanggi-
appeal sa Civil Service, would be implemented. (Gituyojudni
CSC na.Ang previous Rule is that the penalty would not be
enforced pending appeal. But because of the amendment,
ma-apply nakaronang penalty saiyaha. He alleged that it was
prejudicial. The Court said that the CSC has the power to
amend the Civil Service Rules, which includes the rules for
appeal to the Civil Service.
YES. The Civil Service has the power and authority to amend,
the Civil Service Rules whenever it needs the amendment
necessary. And the insinuation that this Change was made for
the sole purpose of hurting his appeal is a mere product of his
imagination.
However, the court said here that kungnaa man amendment
ang Civil Service sakanilang rules, ang amendment is
Prospective in Application. Dilipwede tong ma prejudice
angmga acts nanahitabona prior to the amendment.
Here, that’s what happened. Naaymga amendment to the
Civil Service Rules pertaining to the execution of the decision
appealed, dili covered karonsicomplainant, because the
amendment happened after nainstituteniyaangkanyang
appeal. Therefore, the amendment here has no
retroactive effect.That’s the General Rule (GR) for
Amendments of laws, because laws are prospective in nature,
unless otherwise provided. So here, the amendment must be
applied prospectively, even if the Civil Service has the power
to Amend the Civil Service Rule.
Mamiscal v Abdullah
Katong Court employee and at the same time kay Register in
that locality? So anyway, gikasuhansya in his capacity as a
Civil Register gikasuhansya before the Supreme Court.
Tama banasa Supreme Court gifile?
The Court held that no. The Court noted that this person is
wearing 2 hats. Pwedesyang Civil Register, pwedepudsyang
Clerk of Court. Considering that the act involved here is
pursuant to her duties as a Civil Registrar, kinsaangnaay
jurisdiction (administrative) over her? Definitely not the
Supreme Court. It could be the Mayor of that Locality, or
the Civil Service Commission. The authority of the mayor
to exercise supervision over this person is not exclusive. The
Civil Service Commission as the Central Personnel Agency of
the Government has the power to appoint and to discipline
employees and to hear and decide administrative cases
instituted by, brought directly or on appeal. You may
institute a case against a person sa CSC or sa Mayor,
pursuant to this Case.
DOF v. Dela Cruz. [15:40]
Nagissue DOF ng EO 140 which created the Customs Policy
Research Office. Pursuant to the creation of this office, naay
27 BOC personnel nagipang detail didto. Nagreklamosilasa
validity aning EO 140 before the RTC.
Now, it is argued that this matter talks about the movement
of personnel in the DOF, it is not the court who has
jurisdiction, rather it is the CSC.
The Court said No. It is NOT the CSC that has Jurisdiction.
Why? Because it is not only about the movement of the
Personnel, but rather, it is about the Constitutionality of this
Executive Order. Here, the petition filed in the RTC went
beyond questioning the detail of these employees. The
Validity and the Constitutionality of this Issuance, therefore it
is within the power of the CSC to decide on (???)
Now, going to the substantive issue of this case, the court
held that EO140 is Unconstitutional. Because angpag detail
samga employees went beyond the period, (in fact
walanagprescribeng period kung
unsasilakadugaymagstaydidtosa kung asasilagidetail. It
October 24, 2019
should have been specified.) accordingly, gi strike down syasa
SC as Unconstitutional.
Torres v De Leon
Talks about where do we lodge a labor case against the PNRC
(Philippine National Red Cross) (In Libat v. Gordon, the PNRC
is a Sui Generis institution, therefore cases against it must be
filed on a case to case basis) (walay hard and fast rule)
Naay issue karonsamgaempleyadong PNRC. Gifilenilaang case
sa Civil Service. However, the CSC promulgated a resolution
dismissing the appeal. Now, it is challenged that the Civil
Service has Jurisdiction over this employment agency because
the PNRC is not a GOCC, so dilisya covered by the CSC. The
Civil Service Commission has Jurisdiction over the Entire Civil
Service including the GOCCs with original Charter. So
angkanilang Argument is that the PNRC is a Sui Generis
Institution, dilidapatsya covered by the CSC. It should be the
Labor Arbiters.
Does the CSC have Jurisdiction over the personnel’s actions
over the PNRC? Yes.
Although the in Libat v Gordon, the Court held that the PNRC
is not a GOCC, is of Sui Generis Character, it now requires the
court to approach controversies on a case to case basis. But
the court held here the ruling the CSC has jurisdiction over
the PNRC because the issue here is the enforcement of labor
laws and penal statutes which, in this particular matter the
PNRC can be treated as a GOCC in such issues. Insofar as
personnel matters, PNRC can be considered as a GOCC.
And since the PNRC has an original Charter, Covered sya by
the CSC.
Take note: Covered ang PNRC sa CSC.
As we said earlier, the Civil Service has the power to approve
or disapprove appointments.
In Sec. 3, Art IX-B, the Civil Service Commission, as the
Central Personnel Agency of the Government, (Basically the
HR Department of the Government), shall establish a career
service and adopt measures to promote morale, efficiency,
integrity, responsiveness, progressiveness, and courtesy in
the Civil Service. So naanisilay rules nagina-issue for the
compliance of all in the Civil Service. It shall strengthen the
Merit and Reward system para angpagsulodsamga
government employees will not be based on the Palakasan
System, but rather the Merit and Reward; integrate all human
resources development programs for all levels and ranks, and
institutionalize the management climate conducive to public
culpability. Now, the Civil Service has the authority to
approve or disapprove appointments. It is to check whether
the appointee possesses the appropriate Civil Service
Eligibility for required qualification. It does not include the
authority to make the appointment itself, or to direct the or to
direct the appointing authority to change the employment
status of an employee. It can only inquire into the eligibility of
the person chosen to fill a position, and if it finds the person
qualified, it must so attest. If not, the appointment must be
disapproved. Of course, you may file administrative cases civil
servants, covered by the Civil Service before the CSC.
Members of the Commission.
Composed of 1 Chairman, 2 members; and there is a
prohibition on their reappointment. What does reappointment
mean? Kung giappointka as member, you cannot be
reappointed as member; kunggiapppointka as chairman, you
cannot be reappointed as chairman. But, pwedeka pa
maappoint from Commissioner to Chairman? We’ll have a
case on that.
So, mao to.
1) Composed of 3 individuals; 2) 7 year term; 3) the
appointment cannot be in an acting or temporary capacity.
Who appoints the members of the Civil Service Commission?
President, subject to the approval of the Commission of
Appointments (CA).
Nacionalista Party v Bautista (1949) [22:18]
1949 case, so under the 1935 Constitution, but the Doctrine
Applies. Because the President here designated Angelo
Bautista, the current SolGen as Acting member of the
Comelec.
The Court said that this was prohibited!
This was decided prior to the 1987 Constitution. Now, under
the 1987 Constitution, explicit na: In no case the members
of the Commissions (Here the commission involved is the
Comelec) in an acting or temporary Capacity.
Brilliantes v. Yorac
Decided under the 1987 Constitution.
Because of the Coup attempt, against the President, the
President created a fact finding commission chaired by
HilarioDavide who was at the time the Chairman of the
Comelec. So, na-vacate ang position ng Chairman of the
Comelec. What the President here did was that he appointed
Yorac, an associate Commissioner, temporarily as Chairman
of the Comelec. So gi-challenge karnang validity of that
temporary appointment; (it’s not an appointment, it’s a
Designation. A Designation by the President of as a member
of this commission as acting.)
Can that be done by the president? Temporary?
Samtangwalapa’y mag fill sa position ni Chairman?
The Court said that INVALID. That has the semblance of a
Temporary Appointment. In no case shall any member of
the commission be appointed or designated in
atemporary or Acting Capacity.The Rule is such so that
they would not be under the control of the President of the
Philippines in the discharge of their respective functions. They
are supposed to be independent: Being part of the Checks
and Balances mechanism installed to check the excesses of
the acts of the branches of the Government.
So, what is the Solution here? 3 man dapatna members?
Nawalaang chairman, nabilinangduhaka members.
The Court proposed a solution here that this should be an
internal matter that should be resolved by the members
themselves. So silalangmagdecide kung
sinosakanilaangmaging Acting Chairman, and not the
President.
Republic v. Imperial (25:00)
Decided prior to the 1987 Constitution.
October 24, 2019
The discussion here talks about the Rotational Plan. Here,
they were trying to discuss WON reappointment was possible.
The term of the Commissioners prior to the 1987 Constitution
was 9 years. They argued that if you were appointed for only
3 years, you can be reappointed for another 6 years. Or you
can be reappointed to serve the unexpired term of the
incumbent who has died, you can be reappointed provided
that it does not exceed 9 years. Mao to angkanilang
proposition.
The Supreme Court said that the appointment was still not
possible because of the so-called Rotational Plan. The
Purpose of the Rotational Plan: is to protect and safeguard
the independence of the Constitutional Commissions. They
are performing very delicate checks and balances functions;
They must maintain their independence from other branches
of Government.
So,if there is a vacancy before the Expiration of the
term of that member or chairman, the appointee will
only serve the Unexpired Term. And that appointee, after
he or she finishes that term, cannot be reappointed.
Gaminde v COA
Gaminde was appointed as Commissioner of the CSC on June
11, 1993. And then, the COA disallowed her sweldo after Feb.
2, 1992 because mao to ang expiration saiyahang
appointment. Ang argument niya is that it (Sweldo) should
not have been disallowed… (27:02)
Second Part
It Should not have been disallowed because I was appointed
June 11 1993 and my term is 7 years so i add mo ang 7 years
it should be june 11, 2000 or something to that effect but coa
however found out that imuhang term did not start on the
date of your appointment but rather katong date saimonggi
succeed nga member. Didto mag start, kung late imongpagka
appoint, that is no longer the problem of the rotational
scheme so in other words, nilapasna ka saimuhang term og 1
year so dapatgi disallow imuhangsweldo for one year, imagine
that ha nagadawatkagsweldo then all of a sudden
tagalonlangsaimuha because you were mistaken anyway the
court here addressed that issue, tama ang COA appointment
ended 7 years after the expiration of her predecessor.
Kanus.adiay nag expire ang term saiyang predecessor, it was
on february 2 1992. Ngano man dihana date nag start ang
term? But before we go there, the court emphasized this
rotational plan.
In Republic vs Imperial, the court emphasized this rotational
plan which requires two conditions which must be present for
its workability.
First, The terms of the first three commissioners should start
in a common day ( sosabaysila mag start, of course ang
mahitabolangkatong first comissioners ang isa/duha earlier
langmahumaniyang term. Ang isamahuman 3 years, ang
isamahuman 5 years, mahumaniyang term, but they start on
a common date. Under the 1987 Constitution when should be
the starting date of their terms? It should be on February 02
1987, that is the day of the effectivity of the Constitution, dira
mag start tanan term sa constitutional commissioners and
that any vacancy due to death resignation or disability before
the expiration of the term should be filled with the unexpired
balance of the term para dili ma bungkag ang rotational
scheme.) So mao to siya, they must all start from a common
date, in this case, the common date of all constitutional
commissioners must be on february 02, 1987 or the date of
the adoption of the 1987 constitution, the date it was ratified.
So kaninggipulihanniGamuindeang iyahang term apparently
nag end onfebruary 2 1992 kay katosiya ang secondappointee
na 5 years ra ang term. So pagkahumansaiyang term which
was on february 2 1992 siyana ang nipuli and she will now
have to serve 7 years not from the date of appointment
niyanga belated, one year after pa, but on february 2 1992
pag start so mao to tama ang COA nakatona date nag start
and therefore nag expire pudiyang appointment in february
02 after 7 years on february 2 1999 so mao tong time na nag
expire.
So unsanalang tong sweldoniyanagi enjoy niya 1 year
thereafter, the court said dilinakailangani reimburse coz she
was an officer, a defacto officer serving that position in good
faith and thus entitled to receive her salary. So take note of
the rotational scheme ha its kind of tricky, take note of the
two conditions para mag work ang rotational scheme
1.They all start in a common date; and
2. If there is a vacancy prior to the expiration of the term of
commissioner, the filling member will serve only the
remaining portion of that vacated position.
To strengthen the independence of the constitutional
commissions among others they are empowered to appoint
their own officials and employees, they also have their salary
which is quite big and provided by law and shall not be
decreased during their tenure, isa pa is that they enjoy what
kind of autonomy? Fiscal Autonomy.
Howevernaapudsilaymga disqualification, they cannot just like
the strict prohibition of the executive department that cabinet
members hold any other office. It does not distinguish kung
government or private, no member of the constitutional
commission shall during his tenure hold any other office or
employment neither shall he be engaged in practice of any
profession orin the act of management control any business.
What else? Dili silabastabasta ma matanggal form office
because the constitutional commissioners are removable form
office only by impeachment or quo warranto.
Appeal of the Civil Service Commission
Remember dibasatulo ka commissions under the constitution
appealable ilahangmga decisions to the supreme court under
petition for certiorari but this can be changed by law that is
why na change ang mode of appeal kung asa mu agi ang
appeal sa civil service, mu agisasiya first sa Court of Appeals
before the Supreme Court, insofar to the COA and COMELEC
pwedenaka mu diretso of file sa Supreme Court rule 64 in
relation to rule 65
Anyway we have the case of Tagablanca vs civil Service.
What happened here, a member of the PNP, lahi ang nag take
sa exam niya, so nakitasa civil service, lahiimongnawngoglahi
ang name sa nag take sa exam, lahiimong picture diri etc. So
giimbestigahansiyasa Civil Service Commission, he argued
that this should be determined by the NAPOLCOM because I
am part of the police force and it is the NAPOLCOM that has
disciplinary jurisdiction over me, kinsa ang naayjursidiction?
Civil Service or NAPOLCOM? The court said the Civil Service.
The Court emphasized the power of the civil service; Central
October 24, 2019
personnel agency of the government it brings all branches,
subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies of the
government including GOCC’s with original charter, moreover
the case involved here pertains to an act that is administered
by the civil service commission, it talks about the
administration of an exam which is under the direct control
and supervision of the civil service commission, and therefore
the commission can take cognizance of the complaint against
him, not necessarily the NAPOLCOM.
Scope of the Civil Service Commission
Mao nani Article 9-b section 2 (1) unsa ang extent, kinsa ang
covered by the civil service law. Nganoimportante man ni?
Kay para ma determine nato kung naayempliyadodiha,
naasiyay labor issue, kinsa ang naayjursidiction over them, is
that the labor code or the labor arbiter or is it the civil service
commission. Kinsa ang covered by the Civil Service the Civil
Service embraces all divisions, subdivisions, instrumentalities
and agencies of the government, so definitely katomga
government offices are covered under the Civil service
Commission including GOCC’s with original charter now ang
imporatantenai note diri is that the 1987 Constitution
instituted this explicit provision nadapat ang GOCC has an
original charter, why is that? Kay naa man gudtaymga
GOCC’s without original charter unsay example ana?
Kanangmga private enterprises nagipanpalitsagobyerno,
makuha ang controlling interest, mahimonasiyang
Government controlled corporation,
question, does the civil service have jursidiction over that if
there is a labor issue? No more under the 1987 constitution
because walasiyay original charter. To Clarify that case,
importantesiya because of that labor issue.
Bliss Development vs Peret Calleja
Decided by the Court, made an explicit kaning change sa
1987 constitution, nakabutangdiri is that prior to the 1987
Constitution, 1973, maoningnakasulat “the Civil service
embraces every branch, agency, division, instrumentality of
the government including GOCC’s” walay distinction but under
the 1987 constitution including GOCC’s with original charter.
Therefore under the 1987 Constitution the civil service
GOCC’s with original charters and therefore by clear
implication, The civil service does not include GOCC’s which
do not have original charters, those which are organized as
subsidiaries from GOCC’s under the general corporation law.
So kung GOCC ka gikanpero you were organized by the
corporation code of the Philippines, walay jurisdiction ang civil
service commission saimuha so kato ang clearcutna rule
karon.
Huco vs NLRC
A 1997 case, kinsa ang naay jurisdiction over huco, a project
engineer of the National Housing Corporation, the court said
that the National Housing Corporation is a GOCC which does
not have an original charter, it was incorporated under the
general corporation code and therefore considering that
dilesiya GOCC with original charter, kinsa man ang naay
jurisdiction? Is it the civil service commission? No more, it is
the labor arbiter, the NLRC and therefore ang mga laws na
mag govern samgaempleyadoanangamga GOCC’s nawalay
original charter would be the labor code and not the civil
service rules. The Civil Service now only covers GOCC’s with
original charters having been incorporated under the
corporation law, the National Housing Corporation is governed
by the Labor Code and found under the jurisdiction of the
National Labor Relations Commission NLRC.
HDMF vs COA
Here naay incentives ngagihatagning RA6971 an act to
encourage productivity and maintain industrial peace by
providing incentives to both labor and capital. Karon pursuant
to this law ang HDMF, unsaganing ang common term, the
PAGIBIG si HDMF, pursuant to that law nag hatagsiyaog
productivity incentive bonuses however the COA disallowed
the bonuses on the ground that this law excludes agencies
that are covered by the Civil Service Commission, considering
that the PAGIBIG is a GOCC with and original charter,
kinsagani ang naay jurisdiction over saiyaha? Yes the Civil
Service, therefore excluded siyasa applicability
aningmgabalaudpara makahatagogmga incentives and the
court said here natamasi COA. The legislature intended that
RA6971 to cover only GOCC’s incorporated under the general
corporation law, therefore it will not apply to GOCC’s with
original charters, in this case the HDMF is a GOCC with
original charter, it is created by special law under, particularly
PD 1752 as such the HDMF or the PAGIBIG is covered by the
civil service law accordingly it is excluded from the coverage
of this RA6971.
PNB vs Teyano
Now in this case teyano, vice president and manager of the
bank and 8 other employees of the PNB was administratively
charged before the PNB hearing committee. Now after
investigation of gross neglect they appealed to the civil
service commission however on the meantime the PNB ceased
to be a GOCC because it was converted into a private banking
institution by executive order number 118. Now pending ang
case karonsa civil service, so nag appeal karon ang
mgaempliyadosa civil service commission kay gipang dismiss
man silasa PNB, siningsakasilasa civil service commission.
Ana ang PNB, the civil service no longer has jurisdiction
because private entity nanisi PNB, is the PNB correct? Does
EO 118 have the effect of removing from the jurisdiction of
the civil service commission, the appeal of the employees
here which was already pending before the EO 118 that
converted PNB into a private institution. The Court said it did
not have the effect of removing the jurisdiction of the civil
service. This EO 80 also known as the revised charter of the
PNB (Sir would sometimes mix EO 80 and EO 118) converted
the bank into a private financial banking institution and
therefore of its conversion it would no longer be covered by
the civil service commission and the COA however, by no
stretch of intelligent and reasonable construction that the
provisions of this executive order be interpreted in a way to
divest the civil service of its jurisdiction over pending
disciplinary cases committed by an employee of the bank at
the time the bank was still a GOCC, so therefore by the mere
issuance of this EO, dilipwedena ma dismiss tanan cases
pending already sa civil service because naprivate na ang
bank, mag padayun tong mga cases na pending before the
civil service commission, the EO would therefore now affect
subsequent cases filed by employees after the conversion of
the PNB into a private banking institution. It will not however
have any effect proactively sakatongmga pending cases
before the civil service commission. So walagi apply
retroactively ang EO 80 and so the civil service retain its
jurisdiction over the appeal of the employees here despite of
the conversion of the bank to a private institution.
So lets go to the COMELEC, paspaskaayo ta diba?
October 24, 2019
Article 9-c there shall be a commission on elections, pila
kabuok ang members sa COMELEC? It compose of a chairman
and 6 commissioners so 1 plus 6 equals 7 who shall be
natural born citizens of the philippines and at the time of their
appointment at least 35 years of age, holder of a college
degree and must not have been candidates for any elective
position in the immediate proceeding elections however, a
majority thereof, how many ang majority sa 7? 4 including
the chairman shall be members of the Philippine bar who
have been engaged in the practice of law for at least 10
years, and musunodkaron ang inyong favorite case sa legal
profession
Cayettano vs Monsod
Which talks about what constitutes practice of law, kay mao
to gi appoint dirisi Christian Monsod as a commissioner of the
COMELEC, Cayettano opposed the nomination of this Monsod
because he did not possess the required qualification of
having been engaged in the practice of law for at least 10
years. The position of Cayettano was that this Monsod was
not a litigator, walasiyanaga appear sa court,
nagashagitshagitdidtosa judge whatever, kanang normal
namakitaninyosa TV na practice quote and quote
saabugadona mag appear sa court day in and day out, maona
ang argument niCayettano. So what are the requirements?
Here Monsod was nominated to be a chairman of the
COMELEC which under the Constitution must be a member of
the Bar and practicing law for at least 10 years, so the Court
had to define what practice of law is.
Practice of law is the rendition of services requiring the
knowledge and application of legal principles and techniques
to serve the interest of another. It is not limited to appearing
in court or advising or assisting in the conduct of litigation but
embraces the preparation of pleadings and papers incident to
action, special proceedings, conveyance, preparation of legal
instrument and giving of legal advice to clients, simply put,
the practice of law means any activity in and out of court
which requires the application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training and experience and to engage in the
practice of law is to engage in those acts which are
characteristics of the profession.
In this case is Monsod qualified? Yes because unsa man ang
iyang work? Lawyer economist, lawyer manager, lawyer
legislator etc. he has been engaged in the practice of law for
at least 10 years, qualified siya to the position.
The same prohibition on the relatives of the President, they
cannot be appointed to the COMELEC, what else? Kinsa ang
mag appoint sa members of the COMELEC, the Chairman and
the commissioner shall be appointed by the President with the
consent of the Commission on Appointments, pila ka years
ang term sa commissioner sa COMELEC? 7 years without
reappointment. Of those first appointed, the chairman shall
hold office for 7 years that one commissioner for 5 years and
the other commissioners for 3 years without reappointments,
anyway naagihapoy rotational scheme so far as the COMELEC
is concerned.
Again ha dilipasabotnakatong first appointee three years ang
mu sunodniya kay 3 years langpud, ang sunodna ma appoint
saiyaha 7 years na ang term, katoratosasugod ang 3-5-og 7
para ma start-an lang tong rotational scheme. Kato to ha
ayawmo ka libogana. So the rotational scheme applies also to
the COMELEC.
The COMELEC also has the power to appoint on officials on
employees, naapudsilay salary nadilipwede ma reduce during
their tenure but can be changed by law, we also have
disqualifications such as same no for all Constitutional
Commissioners na cannot hold any other office or
employment, cannot engage in the practice of his profession
or actively manage his business which would affect the
functions of his office. Removal, impeachment and now quo
warranto.
So again the composition of the COMELEC 1 chairman and
then 6 commissioners, natural born citizen, at least 35 years
at the time of appointment, proven capacity for public
administration, not a candidate for an elective position, and
majority including the chairman must be a member of the
Philippine bar with at least 10 years experience or being
engaged in the practice of law.
Unsa ang powers sa COMELEC? Daghandyudkaayosiyag
powers as enumerated in section 2 of article 9-c. The
COMELEC shall exercise the following powers and functions.
So lets not isaisa everything here coz you will encounter this
again in election laws, peroimportante ang first provisions no.
Enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of an
election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall. So kato
if the people want to initiate, exercise the power of initiative
etc. muadtosilasa COMELEC, diba remember those cases
katong gusto nila mag amend sa constitution, dibaningadto
man silasa COMELEC. Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction
of all contests relating to the elections returns and
qualifications of elective regional provincial and city officials
and appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective
municipal officials decided by trial courts with general
jurisdiction or involving directive barangay officials (inaudible)
ay makitanasadnininyosa election law dont worry.
How does the COMELEC vote? Just like every other
Commission, each commission shall decide by a majority vote
of all its members kung 7 kabuok members ang COMELEC,
pila man kabuok ang dapat mag vote sa majority? 4, what if 6
langsilakabuok, ang isakay vacantna position, pila ka
majority ang kailangan? 4 gihapondiba, di man pwede3 , so 4
gihaponsiya. Anyway so each commission shall decide a
majority vote of all its members in any matter brought before
it within 60 days from the date of its submission for resolution
or decision.
Where do you appeal the decision of the COMELEC en banc,
you want to challenge it ,asa man ka muadtona court?
Supreme Court. Ang nag lahilangdyud kay ang civil service
commission na first you have to go to the CA.
Now the commission on elections may sit en banc or in two
divisions and shall promulgate its rules and procedure in order
to expedite the 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 divisions shall be decided by the COMELEC
en banc. So first na mag decide atonamga issues kay ang
COMELEC division and if mag MR ka, its no longer in the same
division but rather the COMELEC en banc.
So we have the Case of Barro vs COMELEC, nag labannasila
for this position of punong barangay.....
October 24, 2019
3rd part
What is the recourse under the law? Draw lots. Because the
party favoured shall be proclaimed as duly elected barangay
chairman. Kadtong napilde na party sa draw lots niadto sa
RTC thereafter the records of the case were forwarded to the
COMELEC. The first division of the COMELEC dismissed the
case. Kadtong napilde na party filed an MR in the first division
in the COMELEC. Can the COMELEC take cognizance and deny
it? Tama ba ang gibuhat sa COMELEC? NO. Because kung
naay gi-file nga MR sa COMELEC division, ang magdecide kay
COMELEC EN BANC pursuant to section 9-C, Art. 3 of the
Constitution. The COMELEC division deprived the COMELEC en
banc to rule on the MR. Dapat wala nag take cognizance ang
COMELEC division sa MR but rather gisaka didto sa COMELEC
EN BANC. Gi-remand sa SC ang case didto sa COMELEC first
division for the disposition kay mali man tong pag decide sa
MR. That’s the end of the case when the court decided the
merits for MR
CAGAS v. COMELEC
Doctrine: A party aggrieved by an interlocutory order issued
by a Division of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in an
election protest may not directly assail the order in this Court
through a special civil action for certiorari. It must be included
in an appeal of the decision of the COMELEC EN BANC. The
remedy is to seek the review of the interlocutory order during
the appeal of the decision of the Division in due course.
Kung naay Interlocutory order gina-issue ang RTC abg
recourse nimo ana kay Rule 65 alleging grave abuse of
discretion, di man na nimo maappeal kay di man na final
decision of the court. Ang premise dire karon kay si Bautista,
nag issue ang COMELEC division og interlocutory order
dismissing the MOTION to DISMISS. Since the dismissal of
the MOTION TO DISMISS is an interlocutory order because it
did not dispose of the entire case. Naa kay case, gi-dismiss
ang imong MOTION to DISMISS, unsa man mahitabo sa case?
Magpadayon sya diba because gi dismiss ang imong motion to
dismiss eh. It did not resolve the case, it only resolve the
incidental matter. Ang remedy ana kay ang grave abuse of
discretion muadto ka sa SC. The proper remedy is muagi sa
ka sa COMELEC EN BANC mag appeal sa ka sa imong
arguments with the MR, kung napilde ka didto sa division of
the COMELEC. Do not go directly to the SC.
However, the court noted an exception: you were able to
establish that there was a commission of a grave abuse
discretion. Pwede ka mudiretso sa SC if ma-establish nimo ni
para ma-question nimo ang interlocutory order. Pag dili nimo
ma-establish is the usual way is to mag-appeal ka sa imong
MR didto sa COMELEC EN BANC
Jalosjos v. COMELEC
We are reminded again when the jurisdiction of the COMELEC
ends and the jurisdiction of the electoral tribunals begin.
1.) Valid proclamation
2.) Proper oath
3.) Assumption of office
This was further modified by Reyes v. COMELEC, the
assumption starts on June 30. Kung wala pa nag June 30
tapos naay issue sa imong proclamation , sa imong oath, you
cannot claim na ang HRET ang naay jurisdiction. Ang
COMELEC ang naay jurisdiction ana. What if naka take na ka
og oath, naka assume ka na sa imong office, pero naay issue
sa imong proclamation. Nag file og kaso sa COMELEC prior sa
imong proclamation, assumption of office. Then, the
COMELEC ruled na invalid imong proclamation but
nonetheless, naka oath ka, naka assume kag office. It would
appear na nawala ang isa sa mga qualifications sa jurisdiction
sa HRET to decide the case. Dili ma-resolve ang case by the
HRET tungod kulang ang requirements sa jurisdiction. Mao ng
nahitabo sa case ni Reyes v. COMELEC. Not only decided prior
to her assumption of office on June 30, but rather even if nag
assumed na sya sa office naay issue ang validity sa iyang
proclamation. The Court said that na invalid imong
proclamation therefore, the HRET does not have the
jurisdiction over the case but the COMELEC.
Lokin v. COMELEC
Ang issue dire, he wanted to be seated as the second
nominee of this partylist. He wanted to compel the COMELEC
to proclaim him as the second nominee of this partylist. He
filed the case in the SC, the COMELEC said that this is not
something that you can file to the SC, this case should be
reported to the HRET kay nakalingkod naman ang inyuhang
nominee. Member na sya sa HoR. The Court said na mali ang
COMELEC, because the issue of Lokin has nothing to do with
the qualification, election, return of the member of the HoR
rather the issue is to be seated as the second nominee of this
partylist. therefore, dili ang HRET naay jurisdiction dire but
ang SC kay dili man about sa qualification, election, and
return ang issue. And, wala may gustong ipatanggal si Lokin
na member sa HoR gusto lang jud niya na mahimong second
nominee sa ilang partylist. mao ra jud daw na ang issue sa
iyang life ingon si Sir Gil.
Sevilla v. COMELEC
They were candidates for the position of barangay captains.
Naabot sa SC ang ilang kaso ha. 2010 barangay elections.
The election protest was filed before the MeTC which
dismissed the same. Si So, nag file og MR instead of an
appeal but it was denied. Niadto sya sa COMELEC by way
petition certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion. The
COMELEC 2nd division granted the petition. The COMELEC EN
BANC however, nag MR karon ang losing party, dismiss the
appeal of Sevilla kay napilde man siya sa division, so nisaka
sya sa COMELEC ENBANC. Pero ang boto sa COMELEC EN
BANC kay nag tie 3-3 which means gi-affirmed lang nila ang
decision sa 2nd division. Tama ba ang gihimo sa COMELEC?
Nakuha ba ang required number of votes? NO. The Court
said NO. What is required for the COMELEC EN BANC is that
dapat makuha ang majority votes kapag mag decide. 3-3 is
not majority. Here, lacks legal effect as it is not a majority
decision required by the Constitution and by the Comelec
Rules of Procedure. The Court previously ruled that a majority
vote requires a vote of four members of the Comelec en banc.
In essence, based on the 3-3 voting, the Comelec en banc did
October 24, 2019
not sustain the Comelec Second Division’s findings on the
basis of the three concurring votes by Commissioners Tagle,
Velasco and Yusoph; conversely, it also did not overturn the
Comelec Second Division on the basis of the three dissenting
votes by Chairman Brillantes, Commissioner Sarmiento and
Commissioner Lim, as either side was short of one (1) vote to
obtain a majority decision. Recall that under Section 7, Article
IX-A of the Constitution, a majority vote of all the members of
the Commission en banc is necessary to arrive at a ruling. In
other words, the vote of four (4) members must always
be attained in order to decide, irrespective of the
number of Commissioners in attendance. Thus, for all
intents and purposes, the assailed October 6, 2012 Resolution
of the Comelec en banc had no legal effect whatsoever except
to convey that the Comelec failed to reach a decision and that
further action is required.
WHAT IS THE REMEDY? Under the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure, Dapat naay hearing para madecide, para mag vote
na pud usab and thereafter if nag tie gihapon after hearing,
naa syay mga effects. The COMELEC En Banc
Reyes v. COMELEC
(Problematic ang iyang proclamation)
She was proclaimed a winner in May 2013 elections as a
member of the HoR. She was proclaimed on mAy 17, 2013.
The COMELEC en banc issued a certificate of finality declaring
her to be disqualified to take the office. Nevertheless, she
took the office. The certificate of finality na disqualified sya, it
happened on May 14, 2013. In other words, dili jud sya
qualified to be proclaimed as winner and therefore, kung
invalid iyang proclamation, invalid pud iyang oath. She has
not yet assumed office which starts on June 30, 2013 (noon).
She argued that she is already a member of the HoR,
therefore, the case should be filed before the HRET. The Court
said na mali si Reyes, kay invalid na imong proclamation.
Prior sa iyang assumption of office, natanggal na ang
requirement na valid proclamation before the HRET can get
hold of her case. Dapat naay valid proclamation, proper oath,
and assumption of office para naay jurisdiction ang HRET.
Moreover, the date of assumption of office is noon on June 30
as provided by the Constitution. Thus, until such time, the
COMELEC has the jurisdiction. Here, wala niya na meet ang
requirements. On MR in the COMELEC, before she was
proclaimed as a winner there was already a disposition on the
qualification on the position to run for office na disqualified
sya. Therefore, ang iyang proclamation kay was defective at
the outset. Wala niya na meet ang 3 requirements before the
HRET can have jurisdiction over her case because she was
never a member of the HoR in the first place.
Legaspi v. COMELEC
Legaspi filed before the COMELEC to disqualify several
political opponents. Na-raffle iyang kaso didto sa COMELEC
first division. Naay 2 decisions ang COMELEC sa case: The
COMELEC first division disqualified some of those political
opponents, and refer the criminal aspect to the legal
department of the COMELEC. The losing party kadtong gipang
disqualify sa COMELEC went to the COMELEC en banc and
filed an MR. The COMELEC en banc took a vote for the MR at
that time it only had 6 incumbent members but only 5 of the
members participated in the voting. Pila dapat gane makuha
na votes para makaingon ta naay majority sa COMELEC en
banc? At least 4 votes. Nag decide ang COMELEC en banc,
with regard to the electoral aspect of the issue kadtong
disqualification sa mga candidates is 3-2 so wala nakaabot og
4. With regard sa criminal aspect, nakuha ang 4-1, nakuha
dire ang majority. Insofar as to the 3-2 vote, it decided to
conduct a rehearing pursuant to its rules. Nag rehear karon
ang COMELEC en banc but it took another vote but failed to
reach the majority consensus on that issue, 3-2 gihapon.
Therefore, nag take effect karon ang salient provision Sec. 6.
Procedure if Opinion is Equally Divided. – When the
Commission en banc is equally divided in opinion, or the
necessary majority cannot be had, the case shall be reheard,
and if on rehearing no decision is reached, the action or
proceeding shall be dismissed if originally commenced in the
Commission; in appealed cases judgment or order appealed
from shall stand affirmed; and in all incidental matters, the
petition or motion shall be denied.
Kadtong issue sa disqualification sa candidates, since wala
man nakakuha og majority vote sa COMELEC en banc nag
take effect karon ang.. if it is originally commenced case that
will be dismiss. Dili na karon disqualified ang gipang
disqualified. Tama ba ang COMELEC? YES. How does the
COMELEC reached its decision? The COMELEC en banc is first
required to rehear the case or matter that it cannot decide or
resolve by the necessary majority. When a majority still
cannot be had after the rehearing, however, there results a
failure to decide on the part of the COMELEC en banc. The
provision then specifies the effects of the COMELEC en banc’s
failure to decide:
1. If the action or proceeding is originally
commenced in the COMELEC, such action or
proceeding shall be dismissed;
2. In appealed cases, the judgment or order
appealed from shall stand affirmed; or
3. In incidental matters, the petition or motion shall
be denied.
Wala na disqualified ang opponents tungod wala nakuha ang
majority vote sa COMELEC en banc, ang argument ni Legaspi
an action can only be considered as having been "originally
commenced in the commission" under Section 6, Rule 18 of
the COMELEC Rules when that action was originally filed
before the COMELEC en banc itself and, as such, is the very
matter pending before it.
In other words, ang argument ni Legaspi kay this is an
appealed decision. Therefore, kung appealed ang akong
decision, kung unsa tong decision sa COMELEC division kay
masustain because wala nakuha ang majority.
The court said that it was an originally commenced petition
filed by the COMELEC when you filed it in the COMELEC
division. The action commenced was an original action, it was
definitely an action that was filed originally before the
COMELEC even if he did not file it in the COMELEC en banc
because gi file niya ang case sa COMELEC itself, it was also
heard by the COMELEC division. Ang decision sa division kay
decision pud sa COMELEC. Murag SC ba ang decision sa
division kay decision pud sa SC itself. The rules of the
October 24, 2019
COMELEC provide instances kung kanus-a originally
commenced ang decision.
The phrase "originally commenced in the commission" in
Section 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules is worded in plain
language and, therefore, must be construed in its ordinary
and natural sense.25 It simply means what it says. The phrase
is meant to cover any action or proceeding that is filed, at the
first instance, before the COMELEC—whether sitting in
division or en banc—as contradistinguished from cases that
are merely appealed to it. Petitioner’s view that restricts such
phrase to include only those actions or proceedings that are
originally filed with the COMELEC en banc itself.
So pag file nimo ana it is an original commenced case, you
need not to file it before the COMELEC en banc para ma
consider na as originally commenced case. Gusto ni Legaspi
na mag-apply tong dili makuha ang majority, na murag
appeal lang. Kung appealed to sya na case, masustain ang
decision sa COMELEC decision. Niingon ang SC na dili ni sya
appealed case but an action or proceeding originally
commenced in the COMELEC. If ang MR dili nimo makuha ang
vote, the action or proceeding originally commenced shall be
dismissed. Mao tong effect sa petition ni Legaspi. Can the
case heard by the en banc considering the appeal such that
the required majority vote in the appealed case has not
reached the order or appeal to stand affirm? NO, because it is
not an appeal. This is an MR of an originally commenced
action before the COMELEC division. It is a continuation of a
normal course of that petition. The act of filing MR with the
COMELEC en banc from a decision of a division in an election
case as but "part" of such single and integrated process and is
"not an appeal" from the latter to the former:
At best, the filing of a motion for reconsideration with the
COMELEC en banc of a decision or resolution of the division of
the COMELEC should be viewed as part of one integrated
process. It is still part of the original action which was
commenced in the COMELEC division, it was an originally filed
case, ang MR wala nakuha ang majority vote, dismissed ang
case. Unsa ang effects if the COMELEC did not get the
required vote? Rehearing then vote na pud. If di gihapon
makuha ang required majority vote? Mag depende if original
action ba, appealed ba na case or it is a motion or incident.
Caballero v. COMELEC
Nag RA 9225 sya, nidagan sya for local position, wala niya na
meet ang residency requirement because he had to prove it.
His allegation is that automatic daw upon reacquisition of the
PH citizenship. The Court said that he has to prove that he
reacquired his domicile. Insofar as we are concerned, kani
ang main issue: Caballero argued that ang pag file daw sa
kaso violated several rules of procedures of the COMELEC
therefore, denying his right because of the failure to follow
those procedures which resulted the dismissal of the case.
The Court said that rules of the COMELEC shall be liberally
construed. The COMELEC may even relax its own rules like
the SC. As a general rule, statutes providing for election
contests are to be liberally construed in order that the will of
the people in the choice of public officers may not be defeated
by mere technical objections.
Fourth Part
Statutes for providing election are to be liberally construed in
order the people’s choice for public officer may not be
defeated by mere technical objection. Why? The liberality is
for the purpose of promoting the effective and efficient
implementation of its objectives which is ensuring the holding
of a honest, orderly, peaceful, credible elections. So liberal
ang construction sa rules sa COMELEC here.
We have the case of KABATAAN VS COMELEC, which
challenges the validity of RA 10369, kadtong biometric
requirement, dapat mag paregisterkasaimong biometrics
before you can go , so siKabataan Party, gi challenge nila
because daghan pa daw kayo mga registered voters napag
set sa COMELEC, walakapabiometrics and therefore they will
be disenfranchised, dilisilamakaboto because of this arbitrary
requirement. This law mandates the COMELEC to implement
to implement a mandatory biometrics registration system for
new voters, to establish a clean, completepermanent ,
updated list of voters. So required, mandated under this law
that voters who (15:20-15-21) last day of filing of application
for registration shall be deactivated. Kung dilikamakapag
biometrics, madeactivateka, imong status as a voter,
dilikamakaboto. So angkabataan party list went to the
Supreme Court to challenge the validity of this law and rules
of procedure promulgated by the comelec pursuant to this law
on the ground it violates the fundamental right to suffrage. Is
there a violation of that right? The court said that No. Is the
right to vote a natural right? Is it something na inherent. Is it
a right in the first place? The Court said that the right to vote
is not a natural right but is a right created by law. Suffrage is
a privilege granted by the state to such persons or classes as
are most likely to exercise it for public good. Now let’s go to
Article V of the Constitutiton Section, dilinanatoidiscusskaysa
Election Law na. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of
the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law. In other
words ,pwedekaidisqualifiy by law. Who are these 18 years of
age. So nay requirement, 18 dapatka and who should have
resided in the Philippines for one year. Naapajud residency
requirement. In the place where they propose to 6 months
immediately preceeding the election. No literacy, property
and other requirement must be imposed on the exercise of
Suffrage. These are the constitutional provision where you
can see that the right to vote may be regulated by law
provided that no literacy ,property, others substantive
requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of such right. In
other words, the exercise of the right to suffrage is not
absolute. It is a privilege. We may disqualified by law.
Therefore it emphasizes the phrase in the provision, the
franchise nature of the right to suffrage, the state therefore
may regulate the right by imposing statutory disqualifications
with a restriction that amounts to illiteracy, property or other
substantive requirement. Now, kani bang pag impose of
biometrics, is it other substantive requirement? Na
bawaliimposedidtosa right to vote? The court said that no.
Clarifying this phrase “other substantive requirement”, the
Court went to the Constitutional deliberation. The Court
interpreted it na it carries the same tact as the other
standards, alienating a particular class based on socio-
economic considerations irrelevant to the right of suffrage
such as the payment of taxes. So kining other substantive
requirement would be construed similarly kadtungsamga
words nakaubanniya like property. Anyway. The Court
interpreted it not same level on payment of taxes and so on.
In other words, kadtong biometrics requirement Is not
prohibited because it did not add substantive requirement as
prohibited by the Constitution. So anyway, registration is not
a qualification to vote, properly speaking, the concent of
October 24, 2019
qualification is different from the concent of registration which
is regarded as only as the means by which a person’s
qualification to vote is determined. In fact the act of
registering is only one step towards voting. It is not one of
the elements that makes a citizen qualified to vote. One may
be a qualified voter without exercising the right to vote.
Registration is a form of regulation and not a qualification for
the right to suffrage. Diba? Naga paregistergane ta as a voter
before the makavote, wala man lage ta nagreklamolagenga
nay biometrics? Reklamokakaynalatekaugparegister.
Registration is a mere procedural requirement which does not
fall among the limitation like literacy and other substantive
requirement. So kani again, the biometrics requirement, the
registration, it is not prohibited, it is allowed by law. In the
first place, the right of suffrage is not an absolute right, it can
be regulated by law.
Englevs COMELEC
What we need to take note of this case is the rules and
regulations on the conduct of elections are mandatory before
the election but when they are sought to be enforced after the
election, they have to be directory only. Kay nahumannaang
election, especially if they will be depriving votes without any
fault on their part. So mao to sya no? because of
interpretation of mandatory requirement on the form, ma
disenfranchised tong mga voters who voted for this candidate.
The Court said that they should interpret this requirements
after the election since these requirements pertain to form
literally. Otherwise, we will be defeating the will of the people.
Technicalities, and procedural niceties in election cases should
not be made to stand in the way of the electorate.
RIVERA vs COMELEC
This just talks about the instance, kungkanus-a mag set-in
ang jurisdiction sa HRET over the members of the House of
Representatives. Here, citing Reyes vs COMELEC, once a
winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, they
have assumed office, and be a member of the house,
COMELEC’s jurisdiction over that person ends and it is now
the Electoral tribunal concerned that has jurisdiction over
them. But of course, remember the requirements,
kungnawalaang is aka requirements like kung walanasya nag
oath, walajudsya nag assume pa ug office.
Abayonvs HRET
Talks about the power of HRET to annul the result of the
election as distinguished from the power of the COMELEC to
declare a failure of elections. So ang grounds diridaw,
nagfilesilaug protest before the HRET because of massive
fraud, vote buying, intimidation , employment of illegal and
fraudulent process. The HRET decided to annul the results of
the election insofar as to the specific locality where result is
concerned. Now katong argument kadtongsanapildisa HRET
kay the HRET do not have the power to do that, it is the
power of the COMELEC. COMELEC raangmakadecidekung
failure ba of elections. The Court had to distinguish, What the
HRET did here is that it annulled the elections and what it did
was different from the COMELEC’s power to declare a failure
of election. The Constitution no less grants the HRET to the
exclusive jurisdiction to decide on cases and it includes the
issues on fraud, other irregularities committed during or after
the elections. So apilnasa power of HRET to determine.
Consequently, the annulment of election results is the power
concomitant to the HRET’s constitutional mandate to
determine validity of the title of the contesting. It may annul
election results still in its determination of fraud, and other
electoral irregularities that existed. What about the power of
the COMELEC under the law under RA 7166to declare a
failure of elections. The Court said that it is a different power ,
the COMELEC exercise a quasi-judicial function, so it decides
election contests not otherwise reserved to other electoral
tribunals. The COMELEC does not however exercisequasi
judicial function when it declares a failure of election pursuant
to RA 7166 rather it is pursuant to an administrative
function. What is the difference between the two? The
annulment of elections and the declaration of failure of
elections.
First, the former, annulment of elections is but a result of a
judicial power or function of the electoral tribunal. Failure of
elections is in the exercise of COMELEC’s administrative
power.
Second, HRET annuls an election in connection to the election
contest before it, whereas the declaration of a failure of
elections of the COMEELC relates to the entire election in the
concerned precint. As such in annulling the election, the HRET
does so only in determining who the candidates garnered the
majority of the legal votes cast. The COMELEC when it
declares a failure of elections has the objective of holding or
continuing the elections which were not held or suspended or
if there was one resulted to failure to elect. When the
COMELEC declares a failure of elections, special elections will
have to be conducted. There is no overlapping in their
jurisdiction because when COMELEC declares it is in its
administrative capacity, in contrast, when an ET declares, it
does in its quasi-judicial function.
APPEAL
Ang decision sa COMELEC, asa man nimonaisaka? Before the
Supreme Court. Dilinakamuagiug CA. Only the CSC. Because
what is provided by the law is that otherwise provided by law,
any appeal will be before the Supreme Court.
What is the applicable rule in the Rules of Court? Rule 64in
relation to Rule 65. Ang difference is that ang ground
naimongiraise, Petition for Certiaori eh. Comelec en banc,
isakanimosaSupreme Court, angimong allegation na there is
grave abuse of discretion but ang difference
langkayangperod. The normal period is 60 days if it is a
question involving the COMELEC or the COA. 30 days. So
maonasyaang difference sa period. The grounds are the
same.
Garcesvs Court of Appeals
This talks about the transfer of a COMELEC employee from
one office to another. So dilimusugotmatransfer so
niadtosyasa RTC, nifileug petition ug petition for Mandamus
with prohibitary injunction para
dilisyamatanggalsaiyangginapalagpotsalainglugar. It is argued
that it is not the RTC which has the jurisdiction as COMELEC
has. The Court said that the RTC is the applicable tribunal
kaydilikapwedemudirechosa Supreme Court. Why? Decisions,
rulings or orders of the COMELEC that may be brought to the
SC are those which may relate to the COMELEC’s exercise of
its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers involving elective
regional, provincial, local and city officials. Here we are
talking about a personal (27:32) within the COMELEC. In this
case, what is being assailed is COMELEC’s choice, and this is
an administrative duty which is hardly for the Supreme Court
to entertain by way of a petition for certiaori, So what court
has the power to determine this issue? It is the RTC.
October 24, 2019
So we are done with the COMELEC, so now let us go to the
last Constitutional Commission which is the Commission on
Audit, what are the qualifications for you to be a
commissioner of COA. Article IX-D Section provides for that.
Article IX-D Section 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 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 atleast 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.
So tan-awunnmopilaganeang Civil Service? 3. Ang COMELEC?
7. Ang COA? 3, SO imotanawun para dilikakalimotsa number
of commissioners. So tan-awunnimoang number of letters,
CSC, 3, COA, 3 , ang COMELEC, 7. (Moment of mindfuck).
Who appoints the members of the COA? The president with
the concurrence of CA.
Pilaila term? 7 years without reappointment with stagard
scheme.
The COA, to preserve its independence, its personnel and
their salary cannot be decreased during their tenure. They
also have fiscal autonomy. To preserve their independence,
relatives of the President cannot be appointed as members of
the COA or any Constitutional Commission. And members of
Constitutional Commission during their tenure, practice any
profession or actively manage or control a business.
Removal of COA, through impeachment or quo warranto.
Duty and Power
Article IX-D 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.
Parehosa Civil Service, giqualifyna kung GOCC kanaanakay
original charter. You are created by law, nay law
nagcreatesaimoha. Kung GOCC ka with no original charter,
you are not within the audit jurisidiction of COA. Post-audit
basis, pasabotananahitabonaang transaction,
taposdihapakaiaudit, kanisila,
Article IX-D Section 2(1)
(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 accounts of the
Government and, for such period as may be provided by law,
preserve the vouchers and other supporting papers pertaining
thereto.
The COA has also the exclusive authority subject to Article
IX-D Section 2(2)
(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.
Daghankaayonisilag accounting rules sa COA. Every now and
then naasilamgabagona rules, usahaywalapajud repeal.
Anyway the COA is entitled to do that including the
disallowance of irregular, extravagant and unnecessary
expenses or uses of government funds and property.
Basically, the COA is the auditor of the Government.
Iauditnyaang public funds if you are within if audit jurisdiction
as stated. Very expansive iyang power. Main issues usually
namuabotsa Supreme Court whether or not the COA has the
jurisdiction over this entity in the first place.
Boys Scout of the Philippines?
Is it subject to audit of COA? Yes, with a juridical personality
that is created by law. So always ask, unsaba nature aning
Boy Scout of the Philippines, the Chief Boy Scout of the
Philippines is the President of the Philippines, so
maonalangimong guide. The President is a public officer, so
ma subject sya of audit. So ma construe nimona public ang
character sa Boy Scout of the Philippines although it is not a
GOCC, it performs a governmental function therefore it is
subject to audit of COA.
Now let’s go to the power of COA and issue of rotational
scheme.
Velosovs COA
Because the City Council of Manila enacted an ordinance
which, it granted a conferment of EPSA, Exemplary Public
Service Award, to elected local officials who have retired after
being elected to 3 consecutive terms of the same office. In
other words, ginarewardananing ordinance
naniangimongpagka consecutively elected. Unsapasabotana?
Mas gwapomagstaykasaimo position para makakuhakaani
award? Incentive for you to do everything, Char!. Karun nag-
award2 nasilaug EPSA tasgi disallow sa COA by way of an
audit. First gi memo sa COA kaywalay basis then later
nagripenedsya into a notice of disallowance. Karun,
nagreklamoangempleyadosa City countil of Manila on the
ground that what the COA did here was to nullified a duly
enacted ordinance which can only be done by the courts and
not the COA, is it correct? The court said that No, tama
anggibuhatsa COA dire. Under the Constitution, the COA is
vested with the authority to determine, including local
governments if it complied with local laws and regulations in
disbursing public funds and to disallow illegal or irregular
October 24, 2019
disbursements of public funds. In fact, COA’s jurisdiction
extends, to the government, any of its subdivisions and
agencies, instrumentalities and GOCCs with original charters.
The COA’s jurisdiction is cannot be taken by law because it is
vested by the Constitution. Because of the wide scope of
COA’s powers, it has the power to determine if the
expenditure was extravagant, illegal, and it can validly do so
pursuant to the Constitution. The COA has the power to
disapprove payments which it finds excessive and
disadvantageous to the government among other things. So
valid anggibuhatsa COA as it found that the expense here was
without legal basis.
COCOFED VS REPUBLIC
RA 6260 created the coconut investment company and to
administer the coconut investment fund. Now, there were
laws to implements on how to implement the CIF. One of the
laws here is PD 961,One of the provisions there is the
exemption provision, that the funds shall not be construed as
special and fiduciary funds and not part of the general funds
of the national government. The intention being is that the
funds and disbursements are owned by those holding them in
their private capacity. So the effect therefore, Meaning by this
is despite being the contribution of farmers to the common
funds for the alleviation of the coconut industry and therefore
it should have the nature of a public fund, angginahimoanina
provision of law is that it exempts a certain fund from the
audit jurisdiction of COA. IS that exemption valid? The Court
said that these provisions are unconstitutional for they
explicitly take away the coco levy funds from the coffers of
public funds and privatize the revenues beyond the COA’s
powers. It violates Section IX-B Section 2 which defined
the powers of COA. Under here, no law shall be passed
exempting the entity of the government or any public funds
from the jurisdiction of COA. Dili to syapwedemachange by
law. Declaring the funds to be special funds
Fifth Part
Why has the COA have jurisdiction? Because under Art 9B
section 3 no laws shall be passed exempting any entity of the
government or its subsidiary in any guise whatsoever, or any
vestment of public funds from the jurisdiction of the
Commission on Audit. Why does the COA have jurisdiction
over these coco levy funds? Because they are special public
funds, therefore hindi to siyapwede ma change by law. I-
change nimoang characteristic ananga fund so that it will be
exempted from the auditors jurisdiction of the COA. Declaring
the said funds is [pertaking?] the nature of the public fund
therefore, subject to private appropriation removes them
from the coffer of the public funds of the government and
makes them impervious to coa’s auditors [diction?] clearly
this provision divests the coa of its constitutional related
function and undermines its constitutional independence.
We have the case of Verzosa vs Carague is the cooperative
development authority, its activities -spending of the money,
subject to COA audit? Here there was a procurement
transaction, mahal kayo ilanggipangpalitna computer and gi-
disallow karonsa COA angpag spend atonga money. Unsa may
effect kunggipa-disallow? Kita nabamoug notice of
disallowance? I-listanatanandiraang kung kinsaang involved
sa transaction with the directive to either account for the
funds, disallowed siya, give back, i-return ang funds kay
disallowed siya. Ibaliknimotananimonggi-gasto, of course
kungkinsa tong affected i-appeal judnilana. Anyway, the issue
here is that does the COAhave the power to do that on the
cooperative development authority? Yes, COA has jurisdiction
over the cooperative development authority in so far as the
spending of its money is concerned. Because it is a public
institution that is part of the government and it spends public
funds.
Delos Santos vs COA, talks about the spending of the PDAF
of this certain congressman. Gihatagniyaangiyang PDAF,
katong valid paniang PDAF sauna, pwede man niya ma direct,
mao to ang effect sa PDAF ma-identify kung asa I-
gastoangkwarta, gihatagniyasa hospital and then, the hospital
entered into a memorandum of agreement and then
nakitadidtonakatongang payment for the purchase of these
medical instruments were full of irregularities and so because
of that the COA audited it, disallowed it and rendered those
responsible [solidarily] liable for the transaction. Can the COA
do that? Can it impose solidary liability to all involved in the
transaction? Yes, the COA is endowed with enough latitude do
determine, prevent and, disallow irregular, unnecessary,
extensive, extravagant or, unconscionable expenditures of
government funds. What about the involvement of the people
here? The court said that the officials involved here should
have been deeply involved with the implementation of this
program using those funds. Therefore, they cannot feign
ignorance as to how the irregularities came about, therefore
solidary ilang liability in so far as the transaction is concerned.
Let’s go to the case of Funa vsVillar which talks about the
rotational [speed?], it also talks about the promotion. What
happened in Funa vs Villar is that GMA appointed Carague as
chairman of COA for a term of 7 years from Feb 2, 2001 to
Feb 2, 2008, Now siVillar on the other was a COA
commissioner appointed from Feb 2, 2004 to Feb 2, 2011, so
sabaysilasa COA nagtrabaho. Later on, Carague retired as
COA chairman, nahumanniyaiyang term in other words, He
finished his term so what is the effect? Angmusunodsaiya will
have to fill in, and then the term nai-enjoy atongmupulisaiya
would be the full 7 years kayni-retire man to
iyanggipulihanwala man namatay or na disabled, had it been
that way katong mu fill-up would take the remaining portion
but since nag fully serve man sa chairman iyang term,
angkatongmupulisaiya must enjoy the full 7 years. So
Carague retired as a COA chairman, now Villar was nominated
and appointed as the chairman of the COA, in other words
from commissioner nahimosiyaug COA chairman. Now, he
was to serve as chairman of the COA until the expiration of
his original term of his office which was in Feb 2, 2011.
In other words, I continue langniya to nabilinniyana term as
COA commissioner but now he is the COA chairman. So unsay
effect? Pilanasiyaka years nag serve as commissioner,
pagmusakasiya as chairman, katongnabilinnalangna period
angiyang is serve as term of the COA chairman. Perodiba as
we said earlier kungkinsa man angmupulikay COA chairman
must enjoy the 7 years. So karonsiFuna, niadtosa Supreme
Court to challenge the appointment of Villar because number
one, this is prohibited, this is a reappointment of a COA
commissioner of a constitutional commission and number two,
ang period na mag serve siVillar as COA chairman would
violate the rotational scheme of the constitution. So lets go to
the first issue, is this appointment of Villar from COA
commissioner to COA chairman proscribed by the
constitution, is this a prohibited reappointment? Dibabawal?
under the constitution, serve for a term of 7 years without
reappointment. According to Funa this is a reappointment,
commissioner siyaniyakaron COA gihaponsiyana
commissioner, gi- reappoint siya. But the court said on that
first issue is that there is nothing in the Art9B section 1 that
October 24, 2019
explicitly precludes a promotional reappointment in other
words, this is not a reappointment because when we talk
about a reappointment it is a lateral reappointment, kung
unsatungimong previous position maolangpud to
angihatagsaimoha. But from here from commissioner
nahimosiyaug chairman, so na promote siya. So the court
said that the provision does not prohibit promotion
appointment, there is nothing in that provision that explicitly
[percludes?] promotional appointment from commissioner to
chairman. However, okay langna ma promote ka there are
still conditions in the constitution that have to be met before
you can qualify to that promotion.
First rule: Dili bawalang promotional appointment under the
constitution. Again, the COA chairman should be appointed by
the president for a term of 7 years, and if he has served the
full term, he can no longer be reappointed, the same rule
applies for the commissioners once you served the 7 years,
you can no longer be reappointed. However, the provision on
its [face?] does not prohibit a promotional appointment, so
pwedeka ma promote, musakakasaimong position from
commissioner to chairman. Angbawal again is kung chairman
katapos reappoint ka to chairman or commissioner ka then I-
reappoint ka as commissioner. However, even if valid ang
promotional appointment it has to comply to the following
requirements
First, the commissioner to be appointed has not yet served
the full term of 7 years. Kay musaka man siyadiba? So
dapatnaasiyanabilinna term. Further qualified by the third
sentence of this provision that the appointed to any vacancy
shall only be for the unexpired portion of the term of the
predecessor. What are the conditions? Such promotional
appointment to the position of chairman must conform to the
rotational plan or the standard terms in the commission and
that the aggregate service of the commissioner in said
position and the term naiyang I-serve as chairman must not
exceed 7 years so that it will not disrupt the rotational
system. So is that even possible? Na from commissioner
kataposmahimokaug chairman naimuhang term dilimulapasug
7 years total and then katongpag serve pudnimosa term as
chairman, dilipudmulapassakatong term nga full term,
sakatongdapat ma appoint as chairman. Pwedebana?
Mahitabobajudna situation? The court said that it can happen,
in so far as Villar is concerned here, diliniya to pwede ma
enjoy. Why? Ang result man gud if he is to be appointed,
promotionally appointed as chairman would that- [fragment].
Take note ha, angiyang predecessor nahumaniyang term
through retirement, so meaning angpulihannivillar, the person
who would succeed, katong nag retire nga chairman would
have to enjoy 7 years, however siVillarkaron nag serve nasiya
as commissioner for a number of years, so kung I-appoint
iyakaron promotionally as chairman of COA dilinaniya to ma
fulfil ang 7 year term any other will be unconstitutional since
it will ruin the structure. Kuntahay two years
nalangnabilinsaiya but he is required by the constitution
whoever is to fill up the position to spend 7 years, violation
nasiya of the constitution, his appointment here was a
promotional appointment which is not proscribed perodilisiya
mu qualify because, number one, diliniya ma enjoy ang 7
year term, katung mu pulikay chairman and,
dilipudsiyapwedetagaanug fresh 7 years because
mulapasnasiyasaiyang full 7 years as a member of
constitutional, COA in this case. So, is it even possible
namahitabona when the court can have a valid promotion
take place? It happens when there is a commissioner who has
not served his full term is to serve the term of the chairman,
promotional man, so from member kamahimokaug chairman,
he will now serve the term of the chairman for the balance of
the latters’ term and the total of his tenure as commissioner
and chairman should not exceed 7 years. Unsamanana
instance namahitabo? It only happens when the chairman
leaves the office by death, disability and, resignation why?
Because when that happens naa pay mabilinna balance. For
example, on his 4th year namataysiya, so pila pa ka years
angnabilin? Three years kay seven years man iyang term.
Karonnaatay constitutional commissioner dirina nag serve pa
siyaug 4 years palangpud so, naa pa siyanabilinnga 3 years,
so pwedesiya mu-resign or ma-promote to that position para
makuhaniya to ang three years. So katolangna instance,
dapat mag coincide. Si COA commissioner therefore must
have still have the remaining number of years to serve the
position nagi-fill up and number two, the position nana-vacate
must be vacated by means of death, disability, impeachment
or resignation such that naa pay nabilinna term, naa pay
balance to be filled up, and in no case namulapasug 7 years
ang total term anini commissioner as member and COA
chairman in total. Kanusamanamahitabo? It’s somehow
impossible namahitabo.
So these are the rules laid down by the supreme court in this
case. The appointment of the members of any of the three
constitutional commissions after the expiration of the uneven
terms of their office, of the first set of commissioners shall
always be for a fixed term of 7 years, that is to set the ball
rolling in so far as the rotational scheme is concerned and the
appointment of less and lesser period is void and
unconstitutional because you are supposed to serve a 7 year
term, so dilipwedenaimuhang I fill na position kayna vacate
siya by reason of finishing the term of the predeccessor .
Meaning, nadapatang term naimong I-enjoy is 7 years, di
kapwedenai-appoint dirana o “two years langka ha?” because
it will ruin the rotational scheme, so dapat kung nay open na
position dira that is not caused by death or resignation,
impeachment or disability you fill that 7 years.
Number two, the appointing authority can validly shorten the
full term of 7 years in case of the expiration of the term, as
this will result to the distortion of the rotational system
prescribed by the constitution.
Number three, appointments to vacancies resulting to certain
causes: death, resignation, disability, and impeachment shall
only be for the unexpired portion, para dilipud ma ruin ang
rotational scheme.
Walatay issue diri kung siVillardilisiya from the commissioner
unyanahimosiyaug chairman, had it been some other person
nadiligikansa COA, okay langsaiyanai-fill niyatung remaining
portion or iyangi-meet tung 7 years na term because gi-
vacate man siya by the chairman due to expiration of his
term, ang problem here is Villar is already from the COA, nag
serve nasiyaugpilaka years as a commissioner, pwedesiya ma
promote but angdiliniya ma meet angkatong 7 years na
mandatory period. Again,appointments to vacancies resulting
to certain causes: death, resignation, disability, and
impeachment shall only be for the period remaining.
[Number four?] Members of the commission who were
appointed for a full term of 7 years and have served the
entire period are barred from the appointment to any position
in the commission
[Number] Five, a commissioner who resigns after serving the
commission for less than 7 years, just like Villar here, is
October 24, 2019
eligible for the appointment to the position of chairman for
the unexpired portion, so possible again, nag serve nakasa
COA as a member tapos ma promote ka as chairman,
provided such appointment is not covered by the banned
reappointment because it is a promotional appointment not a
free appointment, 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. So ikaw kung gusto momagpapromote kung
gikankasa COA member, mag pray kanamamataytung
chairman tapos I pray pudnimona mag swakimung schedule
and period nanaa pay mabilindidtonadili pa mulapasug 7
years. So lisud-lisudsiya prayer.
Anyways, Funa vs. Meco. Remember this case? Katung
gusto niFuna again naipa-audit angmeco, because it is
covered by the COA’s audit jurisdiction and the [court?] has
decided that meco is a non-governmental entity, However
there are funds being collected by the meco pertaining to
verification fees that it was authorized to collect under law,
and these said public funds are subject to the audit
jurisdiction of the COA, so as a general rule, meco is not
subject to the audit jurisdiction of COA since it is a non-
governmental entity but in so far as the public funds
naiyanggina collect it is subject to COA’s jurisdiction. Meco is
a sui generis entity that is a non-government entity beyond
the COA’s jurisdiction.
TESDA vs COA
O kani, naamga extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses
incurred by the TESDA nanakitasa auditor by the COA na for
subject for disallowance, and gi-disallow sa COA. Was the
COA correct in disallowing it? Yes, it is generally accorded
complete discretion in the exercise of its constitutional duty
and the court generally sustains its decisions in recognition of
its expertise in the laws it is entrusted to enforce. However is
the COA completely insulated from the courts power? No,
because again expanded jurisdiction of the supreme court or
any courts for that matter, if there is a violation or if there is
a grave abuse of discretion, the court can set aside any
exercise its discretion with the COA.
decision of the COA not only on the basis of the doctrine of
separation of powers but also from the presumed expertise on
the laws there are entrusted to enforce unless it is a grave
abuse of discretion. In this case the court agreed that the
COA, that the internal audit and verification conducted by
[here?] failed to demonstrate the degree of diligence and
good faith required in the performance of their sworn duty to
safeguard the assets of this institution. So kato, naging
negligent siya, apilsiyasapag audit nakasabwatsiya among
other things and that liable siya for the transaction.
For the case of Nayong Pilipino vs Pulido Tan, is that the
Nayong Pilipino Incorporated subject to the COA’s
jurisdiction? Yes, COA is the guardian of public funds, the said
broad powers etc, it has audit jurisdiction in this Nayong
Pilipino.
Case of Reyes vs COA, on the appeal of the decisions of
COA, asaganikamo-appeal? If you want to question the
decision of COA? You’d go to the supreme court, Rule 64 in
relation to rule 65, 30 day period from receipt of decision,
unsaimong ground? Grave abuse of discretion or grounds
provided in rule 65.
In Reblora vs AFP, nag file siyaug appeal sa decision sa
COA, before the court of appeals. Under rule 45 before the
supreme court, questions of law. Tama baiyanggihimo? No,
dapat through rule 65, grave abuse of discretion, rule 64 in
relation of rule 65. In rule 45 petition before the supreme
court, the court is tasked to examine the questions of law, it
is not similar to rule 65 petition which examines if there is
grave use of discretion. So mali, gi dismiss sa court iyang
case.

NHA vs COA

This talks about the award of the [port?] in a litigation against

the NHA, awarding attorney’s fees, and the court said,
Remember katongmga money claims, we first subject that to
COA’s approval pursuant to PD 1445, So again, katong cases
nagatudlosaatoana it is not advisable if it is a money claim
against the government, the first route should be COA, file
kadidtoug necessary pleading petition in order for COA to
determine if it is a valid money claim and if it so determines,
it will rule on the matter.

PARAISO ABAN vs COA

Kaninaay, katiwaliansa AFP RSBS, that the AFP RSBS

kasabwatdiriang [budget corps?] so apilsiyasapag audit sa
COA, to be complicit in the irregularities, and the court
reminded that the parties here that the exercise of the COA of
its general audit powers is among the mechanisms of the
checks and balances instituted in the constitution, and the
COA’s power and authority to determine and audit these
funds, here the COA can disallow irregular, expensive, and
extravagant use of funds. What does the court do with the
COA’s findings? As a general rule, it will not only sustain the