(Pakibura after but guys, I remember sabi ni Dean two to three sentences lang daw dapat ang doctrines

/ digests for each case) ARTICLE IX: CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS

COMMISSION ON AUDIT

Sec 1: Purpose, Organization, Composition, Appointment

(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 at least ten years, and must not have been candidates for any elective position in the elections immediately preceding their appointment. At no time shall all Members of the Commission belong to the same profession. (2) The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years without reappointment. Of those first appointed, the Chairman shall hold office for seven years, one Commissioner for five years, and the other Commissioner for three years, without reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the

Article 1
Composed of: 1 Chairman, 2 Commissioners Qualifications: a. Natural-born citizens of the Philippines b. At least 35 years of Age c. Either a Certified Public Accountant with 10 years auditing experience or members of the bar practicing the law for at least 10 years. Powers: a. Examine and audit all government revenues b. Examine and audit all government c. Settle Government accounts d. Promulgate accounting and auditing rules e. Decide administrative cases involving expenditures of funds

unexpired portion of the term of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.

Composed of: 1 Chairman, 2 Commissioners Qualifications: a. Natural-born citizens of the Philippines b. At least 35 years of Age c. Either a Certified Public Accountant with 10 years auditing experience or members of the bar practicing the law for at least 10 years.

Composed of 1 Chairman 2 Commissioners

Qualifications Natural-born citizens of the Philippines At least 35 years of Age Either a Certified Public Accountant with 10 years auditing experience or members of the bar practicing the law for at least 10 years.

Powers Examine and audit all government revenues Examine and audit all government

. Examine and audit all government revenues

Examine and audit all government expenses

Powers: a. Examine and audit all government revenues b. Examine and audit all government c. Settle Government accounts

d. Promulgate accounting and auditing rules e. Decide administrative cases involving expenditures of funds

Mison v COA ( COA as collegial Body) It is within the power of COA as a collegial body (Chairman and two Commissioners) to decide any case brought before it within 60 days from the date of submission for resolution, subject to the review of the Supreme Court on certiorari. Any decision made by someone who has no jurisdiction for the Commission will be rendered substantively void ab initio. Funa v COA (Promotional Appointments) Appointment of members of the constitutional commissions after the expiration of uneven terms of office shall be for a fixed term of 7 years, otherwise it would be void and unconstitutional. Appointing authority cannot shorten the 7 years in case of expiration of the term as this would distort the rotational system prescribed by the Constitution. These appointments from vacancies resulting from (death, resignation, disability, impeachment) will be for the unexpired term but such appointment cannot be less than the unexpired term. Reapportionment is the movement to one and the same office (Commissioner to Commissioner, Chairman to Chairman) while an appointment involves a movement to a different position and hence not the reappointment barred in the Constitution. Sec 2: Powers and Functions
(1) The Commission on Audit shall have the power, authority, and duty to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters, and on a post-audit basis: (a) constitutional bodies, commissions and offices that have been granted fiscal autonomy under this Constitution; (b) autonomous state colleges and universities; (c) other government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; and (d) such non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity, directly or indirectly, from or through the Government, which are required by law or the granting institution to submit to such audit as a condition of subsidy or equity. However, where the internal control system of the audited agencies is inadequate, the Commission may adopt such measures, including temporary or special pre-audit, as are necessary and appropriate to correct the deficiencies. It shall keep the general accounts of the Government and, for such period as may be provided by law, preserve the vouchers and other supporting papers pertaining thereto. (2) The Commission shall have exclusive authority, subject to the limitations in this Article, to define the scope of its audit and examination, establish the techniques and methods required therefor, and promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations, including those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures or uses of government funds and properties.

Examine and Audit Government Revenues Government expenditures Audit Jurisdiction Settle Govt Account Scope and techniques for its own auditing procedures Promulgate accounting and auditing rules

Decide administrative cases involving expenditure of public funds Sec 3: Exemption from Jurisdiction
No law shall be passed exempting any entity of the Government or its subsidiaries in any guise whatever, or any investment of public funds, from the jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit.

Sec 4: Annual Report

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

DOCTRINES: 9. Aguinaldo v Sandiganbayan [1996] (independent administrative ruling) COA's approval of petitioner's disbursements only relates to the administrative aspect of the matter of his accountability but it does not foreclose the Ombudsman's authority to investigate and determine whether there is a crime to be prosecuted for which petitioner is answerable. Therefore, while the COA may assist in gathering evidence to substantiate a charge of malversation, any determination made by it will not be conclusive as to whether adequate cause exists to prosecute a case. This is so because the Ombudsman is given the power to investigate on its own an illegal act or omission of a public official. 10. DBP v COA [2004] (SLP) The income of the Special Loan Program (SLP) is not the income of the DBP. The DBP Board Resolution No. 794 shows that DBP intended to establish a trust fund to cover the retirement benefits of certain employees under RA 1616. The principal and income of the Fund would be separate and distinct from the funds of DBP, as provided in the salient portions of said Resolution, and must be used to satisfy all of the liabilities to the beneficiary officials and employees under the Gratuity Plan. COA correctly observed that the right of the employees to claim their gratuities from the Fund is still inchoate. RA 1616 does not allow employees to receive their gratuities until they retire. However, this does not invalidate the trust created by DBP or the concomitant transfer of legal title to the trustees. 11. DBP v. COA [2006] (Sec. 2; government expenditures) Administrative agencies would be free to utilize such funds from the government freely as long as they can justify their use through the mere invocation of laudable

purposes. If the disallowance was made pursuant to the applicable law, it cannot be assailed as an act of grave abuse of discretion by COA.

12. Nava v. Palattao (Sec. 2 ; government expenditures) COA is the agency specifically given the power, authority and duty to examine, audit and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of fund and property owned by or pertaining to the government. It has the exclusive authority to define the scope of its audit and examination and to establish the required techniques and methods. Thus, COAs findings are accorded not only respect but also finality, when they are not tainted with grave abuse of discretion. 13. Gualberto Dela Llana v COA [2012] There is nothing in the said provision that requires the COA to conduct a pre-audit of all government transactions and for all government agencies. The only clear reference to this is found in Section 2, paragraph 1, which provides that a post-audit is mandated for certain government or private entities with state subsidy or equity and only when the internal control system of an audited entity is inadequate. In such a situation, the COA may adopt measures, including a temporary or special pre-audit, to correct the deficiencies. The conduct of a pre-audit is not a mandatory duty that this Court may compel the COA to perform. This discretion on its part is in line with the constitutional pronouncement that the COA has the exclusive authority to define the scope of its audit and examination. 14. Candelario Versoza v Guillermo Carague [2012] Under the Constitution, COA is empowered to examine and audit the use of funds by an agency of the national government on a post-audit basis. For this purpose, the Constitution has provided that the COA 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. As such, CDAs decisions regarding procurement of equipment for its own use, including computers and its accessories, is subject to the COAs auditing rules and regulations for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive and extravagant expenditures. 17. Philippine Airlines v. COA [1995] Government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCC) are under the audit jurisdiction of the COA. However, if an organization or company ceases to be a GOCC through various changes it has undergone through time, it is no longer under COAs audit jurisdiction.

18. CIR v. COA [1993] COA is not an executive agency. It is one of the three independent constitutional commissions. 19. CSC v Pobre The functions of the CSC as the central personnel agency of the government, the duty to examine accounts and expenditures relating to leave benefits properly pertains to the COA. Where government expenditures or use of funds is involved, the CSC cannot claim exclusive domain simply because 'leave' matters are also involved. 20. Luciano Veloso v COA LGU's though granted local fiscal autonomy, are still within the audit jurisdiction of the COA. The exercise of its general audit power is among the constitutional mechanisms that gives life to the check and balance system inherent in our form of government. COA's assailed decisions were made in faithful compliance with its mandate and in judicious exercise of its general audit power as conferred on it by the Constitution. 25. Dingcong v Guingona (Power to disapprove payment) COA has the power to reduce the amounts it is due to pay on already passed audits, ONLY on the ground that the original amount is excessive and disadvantageous to the government. This includes labor contracts. This power stems from COAs authority and duty to settle accounts expended by the Government. 26. NHC v COA (Power to disapprove funds) COA has been enshrined by the government with the power to disallow irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures. Constitutional mandate that cannot be ignored, even in the contracting of foreign loans. 33. City of Basilan vs. Hechanova (City council with no power to abolish COA position) City councils have no power to abolish positions that come under the purview of the General Auditing Office (COA), even if it is the same city council who created the position with an ordinance. 34. Luciana Veloso v Commission on Audit (Exemption from Jurisdiction)

The jurisdiction of COA extends to the government itself, including LGUs, and can thus disallow disbursements of Local Government funds, if they are found to be excessive.

Reviewer prepared by Block D 2017 | Arcellana, Alvaniz, Corpin, Delgado, De Quinto, Dy-J, Encarnacion, Gullas, Lim, Logronio, Molaer, Paguio, Rodriguez, Sandique, Santos, Tan