9/13/2016

NationalAmnestyCommissionvs.COA:156982:September8,2004:J.Corona:EnBanc:Decision

ENBANC

[G.R.No.156982.September8,2004]

NATIONAL AMNESTY COMMISSION, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT,

This petition for review seeks to annul the two decisions of respondent Commission on Audit
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
(COA) datedJuly26,2001 andJanuary30,2003, affirmingtheSeptember21,1998ruling of
the National Government Audit Office (NGAO). The latter in turn upheldAuditor Ernesto C. Eulalias
orderdisallowingthe payment ofhonoraria to the representatives of petitioners ex officio members,
perCOAMemorandumNo.97038.
Petitioner National Amnesty Commission (NAC) is a government agency created on March 25,
1994bythenPresidentFidelV.RamosthroughProclamationNo.347.TheNACistaskedtoreceive,
process and review amnesty applications. It is composed of seven members: a Chairperson, three
regular members appointed by the President, and the Secretaries of Justice, National Defense and
[6]
InteriorandLocalGovernmentasexofficiomembers.
ItappearsthatafterpersonallyattendingtheinitialNACmeetings,thethreeexofficio members
turnedoversaidresponsibilitytotheirrepresentativeswhowerepaidhonorariabeginningDecember
12, 1994. However, on October 15, 1997, NAC resident auditor Eulalia disallowed on audit the
paymentofhonoraria to these representatives amounting to P255,750 for the period December 12,
1994 to June 27, 1997, pursuant to COA Memorandum No. 97038. On September 1, 1998, the
NGAO upheld the auditors order and notices of disallowance were subsequently issued to the
[7]
following:
REPRESENTATIVESAMOUNT
1.CesarAverilla
DepartmentofNationalDefenseP2,500.00
2.RamonMartinez
DepartmentofNationalDefense73,750.00
3.CielitoMindaro,
DepartmentofJustice18,750.00
4.PuritaDeynata
DepartmentofJustice62,000.00
5.AlbertoBernardo
DepartmentoftheInterior
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/156982.htm

1/10

9/13/2016

NationalAmnestyCommissionvs.COA:156982:September8,2004:J.Corona:EnBanc:Decision

AndLocalGovernment71,250.00
6.StephenVillaflor
DepartmentoftheInteriorand
LocalGovernment26,250.00
7.ArtemioAspiras
DepartmentofJustice1,250.00
P255,750.00
Meanwhile,onApril28,1999,theNACpassedAdministrativeOrderNo.2(thenewImplementing
Rules and Regulations of Proclamation No. 347), which was approved by then President Joseph
EstradaonOctober19,1999.Section1,RuleIIthereofprovides:
Section1,CompositionTheNACshallbecomposedofseven(7)members:
a)AChairpersonwhoshallbeappointedbythePresident
b)Three(3)CommissionerswhoshallbeappointedbythePresident
c)Three(3)ExofficioMembers
1.SecretaryofJustice
2.SecretaryofNationalDefense
3.SecretaryoftheInteriorandLocalGovernment
The ex officio members may designate their representatives to the Commission. Said
Representativesshallbeentitledtoperdiems,allowances,bonusesandotherbenefitsasmay
beauthorizedbylaw.(Emphasissupplied)
Petitioner invoked Administrative Order No. 2 in assailing before the COA the rulings of the
resident auditor and the NGAO disallowing payment of honoraria to the ex officio members
representatives,tonoavail.
Hence, on March 14, 2003, the NAC filed the present petition, contending that the COA
committedgraveabuseofdiscretionin:(1)implementingCOAMemorandumNo.97038withoutthe
requirednoticeandpublicationunderArticle2oftheCivilCode(2)invokingparagraph2,Section7,
Article IXB of the 1987 Constitution to sustain the disallowance of honoraria under said
Memorandum (3) applying the Memorandum to the NAC ex officio members representatives who
wereallappointiveofficialswithranksbelowthatofanAssistantSecretary(4)interpretinglawsand
rules outside of its mandate and declaring Section 1, Rule II of Administrative Order No. 2 null and
void, and (5) disallowing the payment of honoraria on the ground of lack of authority of
[8]
representativestoattendtheNACmeetingsinbehalfoftheexofficiomembers.
We hold that the position of petitioner NAC is against the law and jurisprudence. The COA is
correctthatthereisnolegalbasistograntperdiem,honoraria or any allowance whatsoever to the
NACexofficiomembersofficialrepresentatives.
The Constitution mandates the Commission on Audit to ensure that the funds and properties of
thegovernmentarevalidly,efficientlyandconscientiouslyused.Thus,ArticleIXDoftheConstitution
ordains the COA to exercise exclusive and broad auditing powers over all government entities or
trustees,withoutanyexception:
Section2.(1)TheCommissiononAuditshallhavethepower,authorityanddutytoexamine,audit,
andsettleallaccountspertainingtotherevenueandreceiptsof,andexpendituresorusesof
funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any of its
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/156982.htm

2/10

9/13/2016

NationalAmnestyCommissionvs.COA:156982:September8,2004:J.Corona:EnBanc:Decision

subdivisions,agencies,orinstrumentalities,includinggovernmentownedandcontrolledcorporations
with original charters, and on a postaudit basis: (a) constitutional bodies, commissions and offices
that have been granted fiscal autonomy under this Constitution(b) autonomous state colleges and
universities (c) other governmentowned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries and (d)
suchnongovernmentalentitiesreceivingsubsidyorequity,directlyorindirectly,fromorthroughthe
government,whicharerequiredbylawofthegrantinginstitutiontosubmittosuchauditasacondition
of subsidy or equity. However, where the internal control system of the audited agencies is
inadequate,theCommissionmayadoptsuchmeasures,includingtemporaryorspecialpreaudit,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
supportingpaperspertainingthereto.
(2)TheCommissionshallhaveexclusiveauthority,subjecttothelimitationsinthisArticle,todefine
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, inexpensive, extravagant, or
unconscionableexpenditures,orusesofgovernmentfundsandproperties.
Section3.NolawshallbepassedexemptinganyentityoftheGovernmentoritssubsidiaryinany
guise whatever, or any investment of public funds, from the jurisdiction of the Commission on
Audit.(Emphasissupplied).
ItisinaccordancewiththisconstitutionalmandatethattheCOAissuedMemorandumNo.97038
onSeptember19,1997:
COMMISSIONONAUDITMEMORANDUMNO.97038
SUBJECT: Implementation of Senate Committee Report No. 509, Committee on Accountability of
PublicOfficersandInvestigationsandCommitteeonCivilServiceandGovernmentReorganization.
The Commission received a copy of Senate Committee Report No. 509 urging the Commission on
Audit to immediately cause the disallowance of any payment of any form of additional
compensation or remuneration to cabinet secretaries, their deputies and assistants, or their
representatives, in violation of the rule on multiple positions, and to effect the refund of any
andallsuchadditionalcompensationgiventoandreceivedbytheofficialsconcerned,ortheir
representatives, from the time of the finality of the Supreme Court ruling in Civil Liberties
Unionv.ExecutiveSecretarytothepresent.IntheCivilLibertiesUnioncase,theSupremeCourt
ruledthatCabinetSecretaries,theirdeputiesandassistantsmaynotholdanyotherofficeor
employment. It declared Executive Order 284 unconstitutional insofar as it allows Cabinet
members,theirdeputiesandassistantstoholdotherofficesinadditiontotheirprimaryoffice
andtoreceivecompensationtherefor.ThesaiddecisionbecamefinalandexecutoryonAugust
19,1991.
In view thereof, all unit heads/auditors/team leaders of the national government agencies and
governmentownedorcontrolledcorporationswhichhaveeffectedpaymentofsubjectallowances,are
directed to implement the recommendation contained in the subject Senate Committee Report by
undertakingthefollowingauditaction:
1. On accounts that have not been audited and settled under certificate of settlements and
balances on record from August 19, 1991 to present to immediately issue the Notices of
disallowanceandcorrespondingcertificateofsettlementsandbalances.
2. On accounts that have been audited and settled under certificate of settlements and balances on
record to review and reopen said accounts, issue the corresponding notices of disallowance, and
certifyanewbalancethereon.Itisunderstoodthatthereopeningofaccountsshallbelimited
to those that were settled within the prescriptive period of three (3) years prescribed in
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/156982.htm

3/10

9/13/2016

NationalAmnestyCommissionvs.COA:156982:September8,2004:J.Corona:EnBanc:Decision

Section52ofP.D.1445.
3. On disallowances previously made on these accounts to submit a report on the status of the
disallowances indicating whether those have been refunded/settled or have become final and
executoryandthelatestactiontakenbytheAuditorthereon.

Allauditorsconcernedshallensurethatalldocumentsevidencingthedisallowedpaymentsarekept
intactonfileintheirrespectiveoffices.
Anyproblem/issuearisingfromtheimplementationofthisMemorandumshallbebroughtpromptlyto
the attention of the Committee created under COA Officer Order No. 97698 thru the Director
concerned,forimmediateresolution.
An initial report on the implementation of this Memorandum shall be submitted to the Directors
concerned not later than October 31, 1997. Thereafter, a quarterly progress report on the status of
disallowancesmadeshallbesubmitted,untilallthedisallowancesshallhavebeenenforced.
The Committee created under COA Office Order No. 97698, dated September 10, 1997, shall
supervise the implementation of this Memorandum which shall take effect immediately and shall
submitaconsolidatedreportthereoninresponsetotherecommendationoftheSenateCommitteeon
Accountability of Public Officers and Investigation and Committee on Civil Service and Government
[9]

Reorganization. (Emphasissupplied)
Contrary to petitioners claim, COA Memorandum No. 97038 does not need, for validity and
effectivity,thepublicationrequiredbyArticle2oftheCivilCode:
Art. 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the
Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided. This Code shall take effect one year after such
publication.
[10]

WeclarifiedthispublicationrequirementinTaadavs.Tuvera:

[A]llstatutes,includingthoseoflocalapplicationandprivatelaws,shallbepublishedasaconditionfor
their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a different effectivity date is
fixedbythelegislature.
Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the
Presidentintheexerciseoflegislativepowerswheneverthesamearevalidlydelegatedbythe
legislature or, at present, directly conferred by the Constitution. Administrative rules and
regulations must also be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law
pursuanttoavaliddelegation.
Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is, regulating only the
personnel of the administrative agency and not the public, need not be published.Neither is
publicationrequiredofthesocalledlettersofinstructionsissuedbyadministrativesuperiors
concerningtherulesorguidelinestobefollowedbytheirsubordinatesintheperformanceof
theirduties.(Emphasissupplied.)
COA Memorandum No. 97038 is merely an internal and interpretative regulation or letter of
instructionwhichdoesnotneedpublicationtobeeffectiveandvalid.Itisnotanimplementingruleor
regulationofastatutebutadirectiveissuedbytheCOAtoitsauditorstoenforcetheselfexecuting
prohibition imposed by Section 13, Article VII of the Constitution on the President and his official
family, their deputies and assistants, or their representatives from holding multiple offices and
receivingdoublecompensation.
SixyearspriortotheissuanceofCOAMemorandumNo.97038,theCourthadtheoccasionto
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/156982.htm

4/10

9/13/2016

NationalAmnestyCommissionvs.COA:156982:September8,2004:J.Corona:EnBanc:Decision

categoricallyexplainthisconstitutionalprohibitioninCivilLibertiesUnionvs.TheExecutiveSecretary:
[11]

Petitioners maintain that this Executive Order which, in effect, allows members of the Cabinet, their
undersecretariesandassistantsecretariestoholdothergovernmentofficesorpositionsinadditionto
their primary positions, albeit subject to the limitation therein imposed, runs counter to Section 13,
ArticleVIIofthe1987Constitution,whichprovidesasfollows:
Sec.13.ThePresident,VicePresident,theMembersoftheCabinet,andtheirdeputiesorassistants
shallnot,unlessotherwiseprovidedinthisConstitution,holdanyotherofficeoremploymentduring
their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly practice any other profession,
participate in any business, or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or
special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof,
includinggovernmentownedorcontrolledcorporationsortheirsubsidiaries.Theyshallstrictlyavoid
conflictofinterestintheconductoftheiroffice.
xxxxxxxxx
[D]oes the prohibition in Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution insofar as Cabinet
members,theirdeputiesorassistantsareconcernedadmitofthebroadexceptionsmadefor
appointiveofficialsingeneralunderSection7,par.(2),ArticleIXBwhich,foreasyreferenceis
quotedanew,thus:"Unlessotherwiseallowedbylaworbytheprimaryfunctionsofhisposition,no
appointive official shall hold any other office or employment in the Government or any subdivision,
agency or instrumentality thereof, including governmentowned or controlled corporation or their
subsidiaries."
Weruleinthenegative.
xxxxxxxxx
ButwhatisindeedsignificantisthefactthatalthoughSection7,ArticleIXBalreadycontainsa
blanket prohibition against the holding of multiple offices or employment in the government
subsuming both elective and appointive public officials, the Constitutional Commission
shouldseeitfittoformulateanotherprovision,Sec.13,ArticleVII,specificallyprohibitingthe
President,VicePresident,membersoftheCabinet,theirdeputiesandassistantsfromholding
any other office or employment during their tenure, unless otherwise provided in the
Constitutionitself.
xxxxxxxxx
Thus,whileallotherappointiveofficialsinthecivilserviceareallowedtoholdotherofficeor
employment in the government during their tenure when such is allowed by law or by the
primary functions of their positions, members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants
maydosoonlywhenexpresslyauthorizedbytheConstitutionitself.Inotherwords,Section7,
Article IXB is meant to lay down the general rule applicable to all elective and appointive
public officials and employees, while Section 13, Article VII is meant to be the exception
applicable only to the President, the VicePresident, Members of the Cabinet, their deputies
andassistants.
Thisbeingthecase,thequalifyingphrase"unlessotherwiseprovidedinthisConstitution"in
Section13,ArticleVIIcannotpossiblyrefertothebroadexceptionsprovidedunderSection7,
ArticleIXBofthe1987Constitution....
xxxxxxxxx
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/156982.htm

5/10

9/13/2016

NationalAmnestyCommissionvs.COA:156982:September8,2004:J.Corona:EnBanc:Decision

The prohibition against holding dual or multiple offices or employment under Section 13,
ArticleVIIoftheConstitutionmustnot,however,beconstruedasapplyingtopostsoccupied
by the Executive officials specified therein without additional compensation in an exofficio
capacityasprovidedbylawandasrequiredbytheprimaryfunctionsofsaidofficials'office.
Thereasonisthatthesepostsdonocomprise"anyotheroffice"withinthecontemplationof
theconstitutionalprohibitionbutareproperlyanimpositionofadditionaldutiesandfunctions
onsaidofficials.
xxxxxxxxx
[T]he prohibition under Section 13, Article VII is not to be interpreted as covering positions
held without additional compensation in exofficio capacities as provided by law and as
requiredbytheprimaryfunctionsoftheconcernedofficial'soffice.Thetermexofficiomeans
"from office by virtue of office." It refers to an "authority derived from official character merely, not
expressly conferred upon the individual character, but rather annexed to the official position." Ex
officio likewise denotes an "act done in an official character, or as a consequence of office, and
withoutanyotherappointmentorauthoritythanthatconferredbytheoffice."Anexofficiomemberof
aboardisonewhoisamemberbyvirtueofhistitletoacertainoffice,andwithoutfurtherwarrantor
appointment. To illustrate, by express provision of law, the Secretary of Transportation and
Communications is the exofficio Chairman of the Board of the Philippine Ports Authority, and the
LightRailTransitAuthority.
xxxxxxxxx
Theexofficiopositionbeingactuallyandinlegalcontemplationpartoftheprincipaloffice,itfollows
thattheofficialconcernedhasnorighttoreceiveadditionalcompensationforhisservicesin
the said position. The reason is that these services are already paid for and covered by the
compensationattachedtohisprincipaloffice.xxx
xxxxxxxxx
[E]xofficiopostsheldbytheexecutiveofficialconcernedwithoutadditionalcompensationas
provided by law and as required by the primary functions of his office do not fall under the
definition of "any other office" within the contemplation of the constitutional prohibition...
(Emphasissupplied).
JudicialdecisionsapplyingorinterpretingthelawsortheConstitution,suchastheCivilLiberties
[12]
Uniondoctrine,formpartofourlegalsystem. SupremeCourtdecisionsassumethesameauthority
[13]

asvalidstatutes. TheCourtsinterpretationofthelawispartofthatlawasofthedateofenactment
because its interpretation merely establishes the contemporary legislative intent that the construed
[14]
lawpurportstocarryintoeffect.
COAMemorandumNo.97038doesnot,inanymanneroronitsown,ruleagainstoraffectthe
right of any individual, except those provided for under the Constitution. Hence, publication of said
Memorandumisnotrequiredforittobevalid,effectiveandenforceable.
In Civil Liberties Union, we elucidated on the two constitutional prohibitions against holding
multiplepositionsinthegovernmentandreceivingdoublecompensation:(1)theblanketprohibitionof
paragraph 2, Section 7, Article IXB on all government employees against holding multiple
government offices, unless otherwise allowed by law or the primary functions of their positions, and
(2) the stricter prohibition under Section 13, Article VII on the President and his official family from
holding any other office, profession, business or financial interest, whether government or private,
unlessallowedbytheConstitution.
TheNACexofficio members representatives who were all appointive officials with ranks below
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/156982.htm

6/10

9/13/2016

NationalAmnestyCommissionvs.COA:156982:September8,2004:J.Corona:EnBanc:Decision

AssistantSecretaryarecoveredbythetwoconstitutionalprohibitions.
First, the NAC ex officio members representatives are not exempt from the general prohibition
because there is no law or administrative order creating a new office or position and authorizing
additionalcompensationtherefor.
Sections 54 and 56 of the Administrative Code of 1987 reiterate the constitutional prohibition
againstmultiplepositionsinthegovernmentandreceivingadditionalordoublecompensation:
SEC. 54. Limitation on Appointment. (1) No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or
designationinanycapacitytoanypublicofficeorpositionduringhistenure.
xxxxxxxxx
(3)Unlessotherwiseallowedbylaworbytheprimaryfunctionsofhisposition,noappointiveofficial
shall hold any other office or employment in the Government or any subdivision, agency or
instrumentalitythereof,includinggovernmentownedorcontrolledcorporationsortheirsubsidiaries.
xxxxxxxxx
SEC.56.AdditionalorDoubleCompensation.Noelectiveorappointivepublicofficeroremployee
shall receive additional or double compensation unless specifically authorized by law nor accept
without the consent of the President, any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind form any
foreignstate.
Pensionsandgratuitiesshallnotbeconsideredasadditional,doubleorindirectcompensation.
RA6758,theSalaryStandardizationLaw,alsobarsthereceiptofsuchadditionalemolument.
Therepresentativesinfactassumedtheirresponsibilitiesnotbyvirtueofanewappointmentbut
bymeredesignationfromtheexofficiomemberswhowerethemselvesalsodesignatedassuch.
Thereisaconsiderabledifferencebetweenanappointmentanddesignation.Anappointmentis
theselectionbytheproperauthorityofanindividualwhoistoexercisethepowersandfunctionsofa
givenofficeadesignationmerelyconnotesanimpositionofadditionalduties,usuallybylaw,upona
personalreadyinthepublicservicebyvirtueofanearlierappointment.

[15]

Designationdoesnotentailpaymentofadditionalbenefitsorgrantuponthepersonsodesignated
therighttoclaimthesalaryattachedtotheposition.Withoutanappointment,adesignationdoesnot
entitletheofficertoreceivethesalaryoftheposition.Thelegalbasisofanemployeesrighttoclaim
[16]
the salary attached thereto is a duly issued and approved appointment to the position, and not a
meredesignation.
Second, the ex officio members representatives are also covered by the strict constitutional
prohibitionimposedonthePresidentandhisofficialfamily.
Again, in Civil Liberties Union, we held that cabinet secretaries, including their deputies and
assistants, who hold positions in ex officio capacities, are proscribed from receiving additional
compensationbecausetheirservicesarealreadypaidforandcoveredbythecompensationattached
totheirprincipaloffices.Thus,intheattendanceoftheNACmeetings,theexofficiomemberswere
notentitledto,andwereinfactprohibitedfrom,collectingextracompensation,whetheritwascalled
per diem, honorarium, allowance or some other euphemism. Such additional compensation is
prohibitedbytheConstitution.
[17]

[18]

Furthermore,indelaCruzvs.COA andBitoniovs.COA, weupheldCOAsdisallowanceof

7/10

9/13/2016

NationalAmnestyCommissionvs.COA:156982:September8,2004:J.Corona:EnBanc:Decision

officiomember.Thelaws,rules,prohibitionsorrestrictionsthatcovertheexofficiomemberapplywith
equal force to his representative. In short, since the ex officio member is prohibited from receiving
additionalcompensationforapositionheldinanexofficiocapacity,soishisrepresentativelikewise
restricted.
The Court also finds that the reopening of the NAC accounts within three years after its
settlementiswithinCOAsjurisdictionunderSection52ofPresidentialDecreeNo.1445,promulgated
onJune11,1978:
SECTION52.Openingandrevisionofsettledaccounts.(1)Atanytimebeforetheexpirationofthree
yearsafterthesettlementofanyaccountbyanauditor,theCommissionmaymotupropioreviewand
revisetheaccountorsettlementandcertifyanewbalance.
More importantly, the Government is never estopped by the mistake or error on the part of its
[19]
agents. Erroneous application and enforcement of the law by public officers do not preclude
subsequentcorrectiveapplicationofthestatute.
IndeclaringSection1,RuleIIofAdministrativeOrderNo.2s.1999nullandvoid,theCOAruled
that:
Petitioner further contends that with the new IRR issued by the NAC authorizing the exofficio
members to designate representatives to attend commission meetings and entitling them to receive
perdiems,honorariaandotherallowances,thereisnownolegalimpedimentsinceitwasapproved
bythePresident.ThisCommissionbegstodisagree.SaidprovisioninthenewIRRisnullandvoidfor
havingbeenpromulgatedinexcessofitsrulemakingauthority.ProclamationNo.347,thepresidential
issuancecreatingtheNAC,makesnomentionthatrepresentativesofexofficiomemberscantakethe
placeofsaidexofficiomembersduringitsmeetingsandcanreceiveperdiemsandallowances.This
being the case, the NAC, in the exercise of its quasilegislative powers, cannot add, expand or
[20]
enlargetheprovisionsoftheissuanceitseekstoimplementwithoutcommittinganultraviresact.
We find that, on its face, Section 1, Rule II of Administrative Order No. 2 is valid, as it merely
providesthat:
The ex officio members may designate their representatives to the Commission. Said
Representatives shall be entitled to per diems, allowances, bonuses and other benefits as may be
authorizedbylaw.(Emphasissupplied).
TheproblemliesnotintheadministrativeorderbuthowtheNACandtheCOAinterpretedit.
First, the administrative order itself acknowledges that payment of allowances to the
representativesmustbeauthorizedbythelaw,thatis,theConstitution,statutesandjudicialdecisions.
However,asalreadydiscussed,thepaymentofsuchallowancesisnotallowed,prohibitedeven.
Second, the administrative order merely allows the ex officio members to designate their
representativestoNACmeetingsbutnottodecideforthemwhileattendingsuchmeetings.Section4
oftheadministrativeordercategoricallystates:
Decisions of the NAC shall be arrived at by a majority vote in a meeting where there is a quorum
consistingofatleastfourmembers.
Thus,althoughtheadministrativeorderdoesnotprecludetherepresentativesfromattendingthe
NAC meetings, they may do so only as guests or witnesses to the proceedings. They cannot
substitutefortheexofficiomembersforpurposesofdeterminingquorum,participatingindeliberations
andmakingdecisions.
Lastly,wedisagreewithNACspositionthattherepresentativesaredefactoofficersandassuch
areentitledtoallowances,pursuanttoourpronouncementinCivilLibertiesUnion:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/156982.htm

8/10

9/13/2016

NationalAmnestyCommissionvs.COA:156982:September8,2004:J.Corona:EnBanc:Decision

wherethereisnodejureofficer,adefactoofficer,whoingoodfaithhashadpossessionoftheoffice
and has discharged the duties pertaining thereto, is legally entitled to the emoluments of the office,
andmayinappropriateactionrecoverthesalary,feesandothercompensationattachedtotheoffice.
Adefactoofficer derives his appointment from one having colorable authority to appoint, if the
office is an appointive office, and whose appointment is valid on its face. (He is) one who is in
possession of an office and is discharging its duties under color of authority, by which is meant
authorityderivedfromanappointment,howeverirregularorinformal,sothattheincumbentbenota
merevolunteer.

[21]

Therepresentativescannotbeconsidereddefactoofficersbecausetheywerenotappointedbut
were merely designated to act as such. Furthermore, they are not entitled to something their own
principals are prohibited from receiving. Neither can they claim good faith, given the express
prohibition of the Constitution and the finality of our decision in Civil Liberties Union prior to their
receiptofsuchallowances.
WHEREFOREthepetitionisherebyDISMISSEDforlackofmerit.
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.,Puno,Panganiban,Quisumbing,YnaresSantiago,SandovalGutierrez,Carpio,
Callejo,Sr.,Azcuna,TingaandChicoNazario,JJ.,concur.
AustriaMartinezandCarpioMoralesJJ.,onofficialleave.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]

[7]
[8]
[9]

UnderRule64ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure.
ComposedbyCOAChairmanGuillermoN.Carague,CommissionersRaulC.FloresandEmmanuelM.Dalman.
COADecisionNo.2001144
COADecisionNo.2003026.
NGAODecisionNo.98006,pennedbyCOADirectorJuanitoG.Espino,Jr.
Section 4, Proclamation No. 347, March 25, 1994, as amended by Proclamation No. 724, May 17, 1996, Proclamation
No.21,September23,1998,ProclamationNos.10and10AandProclamationNo.405,October26,2000.
Rollo,pp.7879.
Rollo,pp.5354.
Rollo,pp.9091.

[10]
[11]

146SCRA446,453454[1986].

194SCRA317[1991].

[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]

Article8oftheCivilCodeofthePhilippines.
Florescavs.PhilexMiningCorporation,136SCRA141[1985].
Peoplevs.Licera,65SCRA270[1975].
Dimaandalvs.COA,291SCRA322[1998]Santiagovs.COA,199SCRA125[1991].
Dimaandalvs.COA,291SCRA322,329[1998].
371SCRA157[2001].

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/156982.htm

9/10

9/13/2016

[18]
[19]

[20]
[21]

NationalAmnestyCommissionvs.COA:156982:September8,2004:J.Corona:EnBanc:Decision

G.R.No.147392,March12,2004.
Philippine BasketballAssociation vs. Court of Appeals, 337 SCRA 358 [2000] Baybay Water District vs. COA, 374
SCRA482[2002].
COADecisionNo.2001144Rollo,p.358.
Dimaandalvs.COA,291SCRA322,329[1998].

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/156982.htm

10/10