BAR 2021

POLITICAL LAW

JUDICIAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL
COMMISSIONS
Handout No. 004


REMINDERS IN JUDICIAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS

VII. Judicial Department

Q: What is judicial power?

A: Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice (1) to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and
(2) to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government. (Sec. 1[2], Art. VIII, Const.)

Q: What are the requisites of judicial review?

A: (1) Actual case or controversy -This means that there must be a genuine
conflict of legal rights and interests which can be resolved through judicial
determination. (John Hay vs Lim, G.R. No. 119775, 2003)

(2) Locus Standi or Legal Standing - refers to a party’s personal and

substantial interest in a case, arising from the direct injury it has sustained or will
sustain as a result of the challenged governmental action. Legal standing calls
for more than just a generalized grievance. The term “interest” means a material
interest, an interest in an issue affected by the governmental action, as
distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental
interest. (CREBA vs Energy Regulatory Commission, G.R. No.174697, 2010)

(3) Constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible

opportunity - The reckoning point is the first competent court. The question
must be raised at the first court with judicial review powers. Hence, the failure to
raise the constitutional question before the NLRC is not fatal to the
case. (Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, G.R. No.167614, 2009)

(4) Lis Mota - The decision on the constitutional question must be determinative
of the case itself. Its constitutionality must be "the cause of the suit or action. The
constitutionality of an act of the legislature will not be determined by the courts
unless that question is properly raised and is necessary to the determination of
the case; i.e., the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota presented.
(Laurel vs Garcia, G.R. No. 92013, 1990)

Q: X filed a petition to set aside the award of the ZTE-DOTC Broadband Deal.
The OSG opposed the petition on the ground that the Legal Service of the
DOTC has informed it of the Philippine Government’s decision not to
continue with the ZTE-NBN Project. That said, there is no more justiciable
controversy for the court to resolve. Hence, the OSG claimed that the
petition should be dismissed. X countered by saying that despite the
mootness, the Court must nevertheless take cognizance of the case and
rule on the merits due to the Court’s symbolic function of educating the
bench and the bar by formulating guiding and controlling principles,
precepts, doctrines, and rules. Decide.
A: The OSG is correct. The petition should be dismissed for being moot. Judicial
power presupposes actual controversies, the very antithesis of mootness. In the

POLITICAL Judicial and Constitutional Commissions [1]


absence of actual justiciable controversies or disputes, the Court generally opts

to refrain from deciding moot issues. Where there is no more live subject of
controversy, the Court ceases to have a reason to render any ruling or make any
pronouncement. (Suplico v. NEDA, G.R. Nos. 178830, July 14, 2008)

Q: What is operative fact doctrine?

A: The doctrine of operative fact recognizes the existence of the law or executive
act prior to the determination of its unconstitutionality as an operative fact that
produced consequences that cannot always be erased, ignored or disregarded.
In short, it nullifies the void law or executive act but sustains its effect. (Aruallo,
Et. Al vs Aquino III, Et. Al, G.R. No. 209287, 2014)

As a general rule, an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it

imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is inoperative as
if it has not been passed at all. The general rule is supported by Article 7 of the
Civil Code, which provides. “Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and
their violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse or custom or
practice to the contrary” (Yap v. Thenamaris Ship’s Management, G.R. No.
179532, May 30, 2011).

The doctrine of operative fact serves as an exception to the aforementioned

general rule. The doctrine of operative fact, as an exception to the general rule,
only applies as a matter of equity and fair play. It nullifies the effects of an
unconstitutional law by recognizing that the existence of a statute prior to a
determination of unconstitutionality is an operative fact and may have
consequences which cannot always be ignored. The past cannot always be
erased by a new judicial declaration (Ibid).

The Operative Fact Doctrine will not be applied as an exception when to rule
otherwise would be iniquitous and would send a wrong signal that an act may be
justified when based on an unconstitutional provision of law (Ibid).

Q: How are members of the judiciary appointed?

A: The members of the judiciary are appointed by the President of the Philippines
from among a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar
Council (JBC) for every vacancy.

Note: The appointment shall need no confirmation by the Commission on

Appointments. (Sec. 9, Art. VIII)

Q: When should vacancies in the judiciary be filled?

A: (1) Vacancies in the Court Supreme should be filled within 90 days from the
occurrence of the vacancy.
(2) Vacancies in lower courts should be filled within 90 days from submission to
the President of the JBC list.

POLITICAL Judicial and Constitutional Commissions [2]


Note: The filling of the vacancy in the Supreme Court within the 90 day period is
an exception to the prohibition on midnight appointments of the president. This
means that even if the period falls on the period where the president is prohibited
from making appointments (midnight appointments), the president is allowed to
make appointments to fill vacancies in the Supreme Court. (De Castro v. JBC,
G.R. No. 191002, Apr. 20, 2010)

Q: What are the qualifications and tenure of justices and judges?

A: Please see table below:

Qualifications
Chief Justice and Presiding Justice Metropolitan,
Associate and Associate Regional Trial Municipal and
Justices of the Justices of the Court Judge Municipal Circuit
Supreme Court Court of Appeals Trial Court Judge

(1) Natural – born citizens; (1) A citizen of the 1. A citizen of the

(2) At least 40 years old; Philippines; Philippines;
(3) A judge of a lower court or engaged in (2) At least thirty 2. At least thirty
the practice of law in the Philippines five (35) years (30) years old;
for fifteen (15) years or more; and old; 3. Had been
(4) A person of proven competence, (3) Had been engaged for at
integrity, probity, and independence. engaged for at least 5 years in the
least ten (10) practice of law in
years in the the Philippines or
practice of law has held public
in the office in the
Philippines or Philippines
had held public requiring admission
office in the to the practice of
Philippines law as an
requiring indispensable
admission to the requisite; and
practice of law 4. A person of
as an proven
indispensable competence,
requisite; and integrity, probity
(4) A person of and independence.
proven
competence,
integrity, probity
and
independence.

Tenure of justices and judges

Supreme Court Lower Courts

1. They hold office until they reach 1. They hold office during good behavior
seventy (70) years of age or become until they reach seventy (70) years of age
incapacitated to discharge their duties. or become incapacitated to discharge
2. They may be removed only through their duties.
impeachment. 2. By majority vote of members who
actually took part in the deliberation on
the issues and voted thereon, Supreme
Court en banc shall have the power to
discipline judges of lower courts or order
their dismissal.


POLITICAL Judicial and Constitutional Commissions [3]


Q: Atty. Matt Murdock is a natural-born Filipino citizen. At age 29, he has been
practicing law for 5 years. The Day after his 30th birthday, he decided to
apply as an MTC Judge for the Judiciary. While his application was
pending, Congress prescribed that the age qualification for MTC and RTC
judges shall now be both at least 35 y.o. Atty. Murdock questioned the
validity of the act of congress, stating that it is a transgression of Congress
into the realm of the Judiciary since such are regarding the qualifications
of the latter’s branch of government. Is Atty. Murdock correct?
A: No. Sec. 7(2), Art. VIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that Congress
may prescribe other qualifications for Judges of lower courts, as long as the
requirements that the applicant is a citizen of the Philippines and a member of
the bar are met. (Sec. 7(2) Art. VIII 1987 Constitution)

Q: Chief Justice Felicita Tiara was impeached. Sushmita Gulay filed a petition
for certiorari and prohibition against the Judicial and Bar Council, stating
that no other person should be allowed to head the Judicial and Bar
council in lieu of a Chief Justice. Is Sushmita correct?
A: No. Sushmita, in effect, argues that the JBC cannot perform its task without an
incumbent Chief Justice. To follow this logic would lead to an eventuality where a
vacancy in the Judiciary will not be filled if a vacancy occurs in the JBC. We can
likewise infer from this argument that if the Office of the Chief Justice is vacated,
the same will not be filled because there will be no "incumbent Chief Justice" to
act as Chairman of the JBC.

The principal function of the JBC is to recommend appointees to the Judiciary.

For every vacancy, the JBC submits to the President a list of at least three
nominees and the President may not appoint anybody who is not in the list. Any
vacancy in the Supreme Court is required by the Constitution to be filled within
90 days from the occurrence thereof. This 90-day period is mandatory. It cannot,
therefore, be compromised only because the constitutionally-named Chairman
could not sit in the JBC. Although it would be preferable if the membership of the
JBC is complete, the JBC can still operate to perform its mandated task of
submitting the list of nominees to the President even if the constitutionally-named
ex-officio Chairman does not sit in the JBC. (Dulay v. JBC – G.R No. 202143 July
03 2012)

Q: Who among the members of the SC, if any, are generally allowed to hold
other offices?
A: The general rule is provided by Section 12, Article VIII, wherein it is stated that
members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law shall not
be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative
functions.
Exception: However, the Constitution provides that members of the Judiciary
may hold other offices by virtue of their offices, such as the Chief Justice with the
Judicial and Bar Council; Supreme Court Justices with the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal, Senate Electoral Tribunal, or Presidential
Electoral Tribunal; or when the Chief Justice presides over the Senate
Impeachment Court if impeachment is against the President.

POLITICAL Judicial and Constitutional Commissions [4]


Q: What are the cases that should be heard by the SC en banc?

A: (1) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive
agreement, or law;
(2) All cases which under the Rules of Court may be required to be heard en
banc;
(3) All cases involving the constitutionality, application or operation of presidential
decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations;
(4) Cases heard by a division when the required majority in the division is not
obtained;
(5) Cases where the SC modifies or reverses a doctrine or principle of law
previously laid either en banc or in division;
(6) Administrative cases involving the discipline or dismissal of judges of lower
courts;
(7) Election contests for president or vice- president.

Q: What is the scope of the rule making power of the SC?

A: The Supreme Court shall promulgate rules concerning:
(1) The protection and enforcement of constitutional rights
(2) Pleadings, practice and procedure in all courts
(3) Admission to the practice of law
(4) The Integrated Bar
(5) Legal assistance to the underprivileged (Sec. 5[5], Art. VIII, Const.)

Q: What are the limitations on the rule-making power of the Supreme Court?
A: (1) It should provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy
disposition of cases.
(2) It should be uniform for all courts of the same grade.
(3) It should not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.

Q: Sleeping Beauty, the President of the Philippines, declared martial law due
to an alleged increase in militant attacks throughout the country. Rambo, a
Filipino Citizen, went to the Supreme Court to file an action in order to test
the validity, constitutionality, and necessity of the declaration of Martial
Law. Sleeping Beauty, irked upon notice of Rambo’s Action filed, stated in
an Address to the nation, “Meron nga gyera, meron pang magrereklamo sa
Supreme Court.” May the Supreme Court entertain such an action?
A: Yes. The Constitution provides that the Supreme Court may review, in an
appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of
the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision
thereon within thirty days from its filing.

In this case, since Rambo is a Citizen, therefore he may validly file the action and
the Supreme Court may entertain such action. (Sec. 18 Art VII 1987 Constitution)

POLITICAL Judicial and Constitutional Commissions [5]


VIII. Constitutional Commissions

Q: What are the Constitutional Commissions?

A: (1) Civil Service Commission (CSC)
(2) Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
(3) Commission on Audit (CoA)

Q: What are the guarantees of independence provided for by the Constitution

to the 3 Commissions?
A: (1) They are constitutionally-created; may not be abolished by statute
(2) Each is conferred certain powers and functions which cannot be reduced by
statute
(3) Each is expressly described as independent (Sec. 1, Art. IX-A, Const.)
(4) Chairmen and members are given fairly long term of office for 7 years
(5) Chairmen and members cannot be removed except by impeachment
(6) Chairmen and members may not be reappointed or appointed in an acting
capacity
(7) Salaries of chairmen and members are relatively high and may not be
decreased during continuance in office (Sec. 3, Art. IX-A, Const.)
(8) Commissions enjoy fiscal autonomy (Sec. 5, Art. IX-A, Const.)
(9) Each commission may promulgate its own procedural rules (Sec. 6, Art. IX-A,
Const)
(10) Chairmen and members are subject to certian disqualifications calculated to
strengthen their integrity
(11) Commissions may appoint their own officials and employees in accordance
with Civil Service Law (Sec. 4, Art. IX-A, Const.)

Q: What are the prohibitions and inhibitions attached to the officers of

Constitutional Commissions?
A: No member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his tenure:
(1) Hold any other office or employment
(2) Engage in the practice of any profession
(3) Engage in the active management and control of any business which in any
way may be affected by the function of his office
(4) Be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with, or in any
franchise or privilege granted by the Government, any of its subdivisions,
agencies or instrumentalities, including GOCCs or their subsidiaries (Sec. 2,
Art. IX-A, Const.)

Q: Sec. 1, par. 2 , Art. IX-B, Sec. 1, par. 2 , Art. IX-C and Sec. 1, par. 2 , Art. IX-D
are essentially the same which relates to the appointment of the
Commissioners and Chairman of each Constitutional Commissions. What
are the rules in filling out any vacancy in each of the Constitutional
Commission?

POLITICAL Judicial and Constitutional Commissions [6]


A: An appointment to any vacancy in COA, which arose from an expiration of a

term, after the first chairman and commissioners appointed under the 1987
Constitution have bowed out, shall, by express constitutional fiat, be for a term
of seven (7) years, save when the appointment is to fill up a vacancy for the
corresponding unserved term of an outgoing member.

The appointing authority cannot validly shorten the full term of seven (7) years in
case of the expiration of the term as this will result in the distortion of the
rotational system prescribed by the Constitution.

When, as a direct result of his demise, disability, resignation or impeachment, as

the case may be, a sitting member is unable to complete his term of office, the
appointment for such vacancy shall only be for the unexpired portion of the
departing commissioner’s term of office.

Members of the Commission, e.g. COA, COMELEC or CSC, who were appointed
for a full term of seven years and who served the entire period, are barred from
reappointment to any position in the Commission. Corollarily, the first
appointees in the Commission under the Constitution are also covered by the
prohibition against reappointment.

Q: Mr. Samonte was appointed Civil Service Commissioner on February 2,

2011. His term ends seven years later. On October 5, 2014, he was
appointed Chairperson of the Commission to replace Mr. Dela Vega, whose
full seven-year term ended February 2, 2013. On February 1, 2018, the
President appointed Ms. Jayme as Chairperson, whose term would take
effect the next day. Mr. Samonte protested, arguing that due to his
appointment as Chairperson, his term ends only on October 5, 2020. Is Mr.
Samonte correct?
A: No. Mr. Samonte is not correct. In no case can one be a CSC member, either as
chairman or commissioner, or a mix of both positions, for an aggregate term of
more than 7 years. The promotional appointment as CSC Chairman of Samonte
for a stated fixed term of less than seven (7) years is void for violating a clear, but
mandatory constitutional prescription. There can be no denying that the vacancy
in the position of CSC chairman when Dela Vega stepped down in February 2,
2013 resulted from the expiration of his 7-year term. Hence, the appointment to
the vacancy thus created ought to have been one for seven (7) years in line with
the verba legis approach of interpreting the Constitution. In net effect, the
President could not have had, under any circumstance, validly appointed Mr.
Samonte as COA Chairman, for a full 7-year appointment, as the Constitution
decrees, was not legally feasible in light of the 7-year aggregate rule. Mr.
Samonte had already served 4 years of his 7-year term as COA Commissioner.
A shorter term, however, to comply with said rule would also be invalid as the
corresponding appointment would effectively breach the clear purpose of the
Constitution of giving to every appointee so appointed subsequent to the first set
of commissioners, a fixed term of office of 7 years. To recapitulate, a COA
commissioner like respondent Villar who serves for a period less than seven (7)
years cannot be appointed as chairman when such position became vacant as a
result of the expiration of the 7-year term of the predecessor. Such appointment
to a full term is not valid and constitutional, as the appointee will be allowed to
serve more than seven (7) years under the constitutional ban. [Funa v. Villar,
G.R. No. 192791 (2012)].

POLITICAL Judicial and Constitutional Commissions [7]


Q: What are the functions of the CSC?

A: As the central personnel agency of the government, it:
(1) Establishes a career service
(2) Adopts measures to promote morale, efficiency, integrity, responsiveness,
progressiveness and courtesy in the Civil Service
(3) Strengthens the merits and rewards system
(4) Integrates all human resources and development programs for all levels and
ranks
(5) Institutionalizes a management climate conducive to public accountability
(Sec. 3, Art. IX-B)

As to CSC’s Quasi- Legislative Functions:

They can promulgate their own rules governing personnel because the CSC is
the central personnel agency of the government. All appointments, promotions,
and dismissal from employment in government are subject to rules promulgated
by the Commission

As to CSC’s Quasi- Judicial/ Adjudicatory Power

The grant to the Civil Service Commission of adjudicatory power, or the authority
to hear and adjudge cases, necessarily includes the power to enforce or order
execution of its decisions, resolutions, or orders. The authority to decide cases
would be inutile unless accompanied by the authority to see that what has been
decided is carried out. (GSIS VS. CSC, 202 SCRA 799)

Q: What is the composition of the CSC?

A: 1 - Chairman
2 - Commissioners

Q: What are the qualifications of the CSC Commissioners?

A: (1) Natural-born citizens of the Philippines
(2) At least 35 years old at the time of their appointments
(3) With proven capacity for public administration
(4) Not candidates for any elective position in the elections immediately
preceding their appointment
(5) Appointees by the President to the CSC need Commission on Appointments’
confirmation

Q: In August 2001, Mr. X was appointed on a permanent status as Financial

Management Specialist IV of TIDCORP, a government-owned and
controlled corporation (GOCC) created pursuant to Presidential Decree No.
1080. His appointment was included in TIDCORP's Report on Personnel
Actions (ROPA) for August 2001, which was submitted to the Civil Service
Commission — Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Field
Office. Civil Service Commission disallowed Mr. X appointment because
the position of Financial Management Specialist IV was not included in the
DBM's Index of Occupational Service.

TIDCORP claims that its exemption, embodied in Section 7 of RA 8494,

precludes the application of this requirement. RA 8494 is a later expression
of Congress' intent as it was enacted nine years after RA 6758 was
approved, and should therefore be construed in this light in its relation with


POLITICAL Judicial and Constitutional Commissions [8]


the latter. A new statute should be interpreted in connection with those

already existing in relation to the same subject matter and all should be
made to harmonize and stand together.

The Civil Service Commission (CSC), on the other hand, maintains its
stance that appointments in a GOCC should follow the civil service laws on
appointments, regardless of its exemption from the civil service rules on
compensation, position classification and qualification standards. The CSC
argued that RA 8494 should not prevail over RA 6758 because the latter
also applies to GOCCs like TIDCORP; RA 8494 even makes a reference to
RA 6758.

Does the Constitution empower the CSC to prescribe and enforce civil
service rules and regulations contrary to laws passed by Congress?
A: No.

While the grant of the CSC's rule-making power is untouchable by Congress, the
laws that the CSC interprets and enforces fall within the prerogative of Congress.
As an administrative agency, the CSC's quasi-legislative power is subject to the
same limitations applicable to other administrative bodies. The rules that the
CSC formulates must not override, but must be in harmony with, the law it seeks
to apply and implement. (Trade and Investment Development Corp. v. Civil
Service Commission, G.R. No. 182249, March 5, 2013)

Q: What are the constitutional powers and functions of the COMELEC?

A: (1) Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an
election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall.
(2) Exercise:
a. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to election, returns
and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial and city officials
b. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving (i) elective
municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction and (ii)
elective barangay officials decided by courts of limited jurisdiction.
c. Contempt Powers but only in relation to its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial
functions.
(3) Decide, except those involving the right to vote, all questions affecting
elections, including determination of the number and location of polling places,
appointment of election officials and inspectors, and registration of voters.
Note: Questions involving the right to vote fall within the jurisdiction of ordinary
courts.
(4) Deputize, with the concurrence of the President, law enforcement agencies
and instrumentalities of the government, including the AFP, for the exclusive
purpose of ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections.
(5) Registration of political parties, organizations, or coalitions and accreditation
of citizens’ arms of the COMELEC.
(6) File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative, petitions in court for
inclusion or exclusion of voters; investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute

POLITICAL Judicial and Constitutional Commissions [9]


cases of violations of election laws, including acts or omissions constituting

election frauds, offenses and malpractices.
(7) Recommend to the Congress effective measures to minimize election
spending, including limitation of places where propaganda materials shall be
posted, and to prevent and penalize all forms of election frauds, offenses,
malpractices, and nuisance candidacies.
(8) Recommend to the President the removal of any officer or employee it has
deputized, or the imposition of any other disciplinary action, for violation or
disregard of, or disobedience to its directive, order, or decision.
(9) Submit to the President and the Congress a comprehensive report on the
conduct of each election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, or recall.

Q: What is the composition of the COMELEC?

A: 1 - Chairman
6 - Commissioners

Q: What are the qualifications of the COMELEC Commissioners?

A: (1) Natural-born citizens of the Philippines
(2) At least 35 years old at the time of their appointments
(3) College degree holder
(4) Not a candidate for any elective position in the elections immediately
preceding their appointment
(5) Majority, including the chairman, must be members of the Philippine Bar who
have been engaged in the practice of law at least 10 years. (Sec. 1, Art. IX-C)

Q: What is the extent of the Regulatory power of the COMELEC over media of
transportation, communication and information?
A: The COMELEC may, during election period, regulate enjoyment or utilization of
all franchises and permits for the operation of transportation over public utilities,
media of communication or information, grants, special privileges and
concessions --- to ensure equal opportunity, time, space, right to reply, etc. ---
with the objective of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible
elections. (Sec. 4, Art. IX-C)

Q: The COMELEC issued a resolution requiring newspapers to give, for free,

one-half page newspaper space for use by the COMELEC. Is the resolution
valid?
A: No. Such resolution is an invalid exercise of police power, there being no
imperious public necessity for the taking of the newspaper space, Rather, this
was an exercise of the power of eminent domain, and the COMELEC should pay
just compensation for the newspaper space taken. (Philippine Press Institute v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. L-119694, May 22, 1995)

Q: The COMELEC issued a resolution which limited the airtime within which
national candidates and political parties may air political advertisements on
television and radio to an aggregate of 120 minutes and 180 minutes,
respectively, instead of per station as in the previous election. Candy Datu,


POLITICAL Judicial and Constitutional Commissions [10]


a Senatorial candidate questioned the validity of the resolution. COMELEC

counters that such action is well within its Constitutional mandate.

Rule on the matter.

A: The resolution issued by the COMELEC is invalid and unconstitutional. While it is
true that the COMELEC is the office constitutionally and statutorily authorized to
enforce election laws, it cannot simply adopt measures or regulations just
because it feels that it is the right thing to do. The COMELEC is not free to simply
change the rules if it has consistently interpreted a legal provision in a particular
manner in the past. The COMELEC went beyond the authority granted to it by
law when it adopted the “aggregate” basis in the determination of allowable time.
(GMA Network v. COMELEC G.R. No. 205357, September 2, 2014)

Q: What are the powers and duties of COA?

A: (1) Examine, audit and settle all accounts pertaining to revenue and receipts of,
and expenditures or uses of funds and property owned or held in trust or
pertaining to government
(2) Keep general accounts of government and preserve vouchers and supporting
papers
(3) Authority to define the scope of its audit and examination, establish
techniques and methods required therefore
(4) Promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations, including those for
prevention and disallowance (Sec. 2, Art. IX-D, Const.)

Q: What is the composition of COA?

A: 1 - Chairman
2 - Commissioners

Q: What are the qualifications of COA Commissioners?

A: (1) Natural-born citizens of the Philippines
(2) At least 35 years old at the time of their appointments
(3) Either: (a) CPA’s with at least 10 years of auditing experience; or (b)
Members of Philippine Bar with 10 years of practice of law.
(4) Members cannot all belong to the same profession
(5) Subject to confirmation of the CA
(6) Not a candidate for any elective position in the elections immediately
preceding their appointment. (Sec. 1, Art. IX-D)

Q: To whom does COA exercise its post-auditing authority?

A: a. Constitutional bodies, commissions and offices that have been granted fiscal
autonomy under the Constitution;
b. Autonomous State Universities and Colleges;
c. Non-Governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity, directly or indirectly
from or through the government which are required by law or by the granting
institution to submit to such audit as a condition of subsidy or equity; and
d. Other GOCCs and their subsidiaries. (Art. IX-D, Sec. 2)


POLITICAL Judicial and Constitutional Commissions [11]


Q: Does COA have jurisdiction over GOCCs?

A: Yes. The Constitution vests in the COA audit jurisdiction over GOCCs with
original charters, as well as GOCCs without original chargers. GOCCs with
original charters are subject to COA pre-audit, while GOCCs without original
charters are subject to COA post-audit. The determining factor of COA’s audit
jurisdiction is government ownership or control of the corporation (Feliciano v.
COA, G.R. No. 147402, January 14, 2004)

Q: The Manila Economic and Cultural Office (MECO) is a non-stock, non-profit

corporation organized under the Corporation Code. Through it, the
Philippines maintains an unofficial relationship with Taiwan, and is thus
authorized to perform certain consular and other functions in order to
promote and protect the Philippine interest in Taiwan. Among its consular
and non-private functions are the charging of verification fees for overseas
employment documents as well as the charging of consular fees for the
issuance of passports and other documents. Does the COA have
jurisdiction over MECO?
A: In the case of Funa v. MECO, the SC held that MECO is neither a GOCC nor a
government instrumentality, and is thus outside the audit jurisdiction of the COA.
However, COA has the power to audit MECO with respect to the “verification
fees” for overseas employment documents that MECO collects from Taiwanese
employers by reason of receiving such fees as the collection agent of the DOLE,
a government agency. COA also has the power to audit MECO with respect to
the consular fees since MECO remains accountable to the government for these
collections, and thus, may be subject to the audit jurisdiction of the COA. (Funa
v. Manila Economic and Cultural Office, G.R. No. 193462, Feb. 4, 2014)

Q: Does COA have jurisdiction over LGUs?

A: LGUs, though granted local fiscal autonomy, are still within the audit jurisdiction
of the COA (Veloso, et al. v. COA, G.R. No. 193677. Sept. 6, 2011)

Q: May the COA reduce the allowance given to judges by the local
governments?
A: No, the COA cannot reduce the allowance given to judges by the LGU.

Jurisprudence provides that, since the Local Government Code authorizes the
local governments to give allowance to judges and decide how much this should
be, the local autonomy prohibits the COA from interfering with the authority of the
local government by reducing what has been decided by the local government.
(Judge Dadole v. COA, G.R. No. 125350, Dec. 3, 2002)

~o0o~

POLITICAL Judicial and Constitutional Commissions [12]