September 2011 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Political Law
Here are selected September 2011 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on political law.
Constitutional Law
COA; Powers and function. Under the 1987 Constitution, the Commission on Audit is vested with authority to determine whether government entities, including LGUs, comply with laws and regulations in disbursing government funds, and to disallow illegal or irregular disbursements of these funds. Pursuant to its mandate as the guardian of public funds, the COA is vested with broad powers over all accounts pertaining to government revenue and expenditures and the uses of public funds and property. This includes the exclusive authority to define the scope of its audit and examination, establish the techniques and methods for such review, and promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations. The COA is endowed with enough latitude to determine, prevent and disallow irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant or unconscionable expenditures of government funds. LGUs, though granted local fiscal autonomy, are still within the audit jurisdiction of the COA. Luciano Veloso, Abraham Cabochan, Jocelyn Dawis-Asuncion and Marlon M. Lacson vs. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 193677. September 6, 2011.
Local government units; grant of award to employees. In the exercise of its power to “determine the positions and salaries, wages, allowances and other emoluments and benefits of officials and employees paid wholly or mainly from city funds and provide for expenditures necessary for the proper conduct of programs, projects, services, and activities of the city government”, the City Council of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 8040, which authorized the conferment of the EPSA (Exemplary Public Service Award) to the former three-term councilors and, as part of the award, the qualified city officials were to be given “retirement and gratuity pay remuneration.” The Supreme Court, however, noted that the above power is not without limitations, such as the rule against double compensation. The recomputation of the award disclosed that it is equivalent to the total compensation received by each awardee for nine years that includes basic salary, additional compensation, Personnel Economic Relief Allowance, representation and transportation allowance, rice allowance, financial assistance, clothing allowance, 13th month pay and cash gift. Undoubtedly, the awardees’ reward is excessive and tantamount to double and additional compensation. The remuneration is equivalent to everything that the awardees received during the entire period that he served as such official. Indirectly, their salaries and benefits are doubled, only that they receive half of them at the end of their last term. Luciano Veloso, Abraham Cabochan, Jocelyn Dawis-Asuncion and Marlon M. Lacson vs. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 193677. September 6, 2011.
