!"#$%& ()*+)*,& -*.

/$& 01"$23, 4%,25 6( 7869

!"#$%&%'%&"#() +(, -. /01 230#($
4
!"#$ %&#'( *+,-.'"/' 0"1'# 234&/5( 6-1'.&/$
7.'&14$ *89!
:$1'&-/ ;
<.&44"/'$#= >.?
@? A-."1
%2 B-? CDEFG
HI !.3J
In Becembei 1989, a 5"'6 78 3%(% attempt by
membeis of the Aimeu Foices of the Philippines
belonging to the Refoim the Aimeu Foices
Novement (RAN) anu soluieis loyal to foimei
Piesiuent Feiuinanu Naicos tianspiieu. This
piompteu then Piesiuent Coiazon Aquino to
cieate a fact-finuing commission anu she nameu
Bilaiio B. Baviue chaiiman. Consequently, he
has to vacate his chaiimanship ovei the
Commission on Elections (C0NELEC). Bayuee
Yoiac, an associate commissionei in the
C0NELEC, was appointeu by Piesiuent Aquino
as a tempoiaiy substitute (i.e. she was
appointeu in an acting capacity). Sixto Biillantes,
}i. then questioneu such appointment uiging
that unuei Ait IX-C of the Constitution "in no
case shall any membei of the C0NELEC be
appointeu oi uesignateu in a '$+,-.".K -.
"1'&/5 1","1&'K".

Biillantes fuithei aigueu that the choice of the
acting chaiiman shoulu not come fiom the
Piesiuent foi such is an inteinal mattei that
shoulu be iesolveu by the membeis themselves
anu that the intiusion of the piesiuent violates
the inuepenuence of the C0NELEC as a
constitutional commission.

The Solicitoi ueneial, on the othei hanu, aigueu
that the uesignation shoulu be sustaineu foi
ieasons of "auministiative expeuiency," to
pievent uisiuption of the functions of the
C0NELEC.
The uesignation by the
Piesiuent of A-."1 "# 71'&/5
!L"&.+"/ -M !NOPQP! is
ueclaieu
0NC0NSTIT0TI0NAL by the
SC.

- Inuepenuence of the Con
Com is encioacheu by the
Piesiuent
- The lack of a statutoiy iule
coveiing the situation at bai
is N0T a justification foi the
Piesiuent to fill the voiu by
extenuing the tempoiaiy
uesignation in favoi of Yoiac
:$1'&-/ R
<3"1 "/S
<"3'&#'" @?
!NOPQP!
%2 B-?
;TTETT
HI H3/-
Na. Salvacion Buac anu Antonio Bautista fileu a
petition foi 530%&"0(0& anu 9(#7(9'$ assailing
the 0ctobei 28, 2uu2 3# :(#5 Resolution of the
C0NELEC wc helu that it has no juiisuiction
ovei contioveisies involving the conuuct of
plebiscite anu the annulment of its iesult. The
case at bai involves the ueteimination of
whethei the electoiate of Taguig voteu in favoi
of, oi against the conveision of the municipality
of Taguig into a highly uibanizeu city in the
plebiscite conuucteu foi the puipose. C0NELEC
contenus that plebiscite piotests aie not
pioviueu foi in the Constitution, anu that it has
quasi-juuicial juiisuiction only foi election
piotests anu to cases enumeiateu in Ait IX-C
Section 2(2) of the Constitution. C0NELEC also
insisteu that the RTC has the juiisuiction ovei
election piotests involving municipal officials
SC iuleu that C0NELEC has
the juiisuiction ovei cases
involving plebiscites.

- The case at bai uoes not
involve the violation of any
legally uemanuable iight anu
its enfoicement, theiefoie, it
is not a case foi the exeicise
of juuicial powei.
- Although not explicitly
mentioneu, the powei anu
function to enfoice anu
auministei all laws anu
iegulations ielative to the
conuuct of an election vesteu
upon the C0NELEC incluues
its juiisuiction ovei
anu that C0NELEC has only appellate
juiisuiction in saiu cases.
plebiscites.
Q6H @?
!NOPQP!
%2 B-?
;F;RFT
HI U&/5"
The ueneial Counsel of the Laban ng
Bemokiatikong Pilipino (LBP), a iegisteieu
political paity, infoimeu the C0NELEC by way of
Nanifestation that only the Paity Chaiiman,
Senatoi Eugaiuo }. Angaia, oi his authoiizeu
iepiesentative may enuoise the ceitificate of
canuiuacy of the paity's official canuiuates. The
same Nanifestation stateu that Sen. Angaia hau
placeu the LBP Secietaiy ueneial,
Repiesentative Agapito A. Aquino, on "inuefinite
foiceu leave." In the meantime, Ambassauoi
Eniique A. Zaluivai was uesignateu Acting
Secietaiy ueneial. Bowevei, Rep. Aquino fileu
his Comment, contenuing that the Paity
Chaiiman uoes not have the authoiity to impose
uisciplinaiy sanctions on the Secietaiy ueneial.
As the Nanifestation fileu by the LBP ueneial
Counsel has no basis, Rep. Aquino askeu the
C0NELEC to uisiegaiu the same. Both Angaia
anu Aquino has his own sponsoieu canuiuates
foi Piesiuent- FP} anu Panfilo Lacson,
iespectively.

0n }anuaiy 6, 2uu4, C0NELEC issueu its
uecision saying that although it iecognizes that
it "has the authoiity to act on matteis peitaining
to the asceitainment of the iuentity of a political
paity anu its legitimate officeis", the case at
hanu is still an inteinal paity mattei wc is
puiely foi the paity membeis to settle among
themselves. C0NELEC iesolveu the petition by
pioposing legal equity between the "Angaia
Wing" anu the "Aquino Wing". The Angaia Wing
will be entitleu to the copies coiiesponuing to
ouu numbei of piecincts (Piecinct Nos. 1,S, S,
etc.) anu foi the Aquino Wing to the even
numbei of piecincts (Piecinct Nos. 2,4,6, etc.).
Thus, Angaia fileu this case foi 530%&"0(0&
assailing the C0NELEC iesolution foi having
been issueu with giave abuse of uiscietion.

The issues of the case aie as follows: (1) Why
woulu C0NELEC uecline to inquiie into wc
paity officei has the authoiity to sign ceitificates
of canuiuacy of the official canuiuates of the
paity. (2) Is the asceitainment of the iuentity of
political paity anu its officeis within C0NELEC
juiisuiction.





SC ANN0LLEB the assaileu
C0NELEC Resolution anu
C0NELEC is uiiecteu to
iecognize as official
canuiuates of the LBP only
those whose Ceitificates of
Canuiuacy aie signeu by LBP
Paity Chaiiman EBuARB0
ANuARA oi his uuly
authoiizeu iepiesentative.

- The asceitainment of the
iuentity of a political paity
anu its legitimate officeis is a
mattei within the authoiity of
the C0NELEC. The
funuamental law itself vests
the powei anu function to
enfoice anu auministei all
laws anu iegulations ielative
to the conuuct of an election
to C0NELEC.

- iefei to the Paity
Constitution
!"#$%& ()*+)*,& -*./$& 01"$23, 4%,25 6( 7869
!"#$%&%'%&"#() +(, -. /01 230#($
;
H$-,4$ @?
V-/? 6$45"S-
%?2? B-#
CDW;C9DR
HI %"/1"K1-
0pon ieceipt of a iepoit-complain fiom the
Election Registiai of Toleuo City against piivate
iesponuents Lumangtau, et al., foi allegeu
violation of the 0mnibus Election Coue,
C0NELEC uiiecteu the Piovincial Election
Supeivisoi of Cebu to conuuct a pieliminaiy
investigation anu theieaftei C0NELEC en banc
issueu a minute iesolution iesolving to file the
infoimation against them. 1S infoimations weie
fileu against each in the RTC of Toleuo City but
the RTC oiueieu the C0NELEC to conuuct a
ieinvestigation of the cases anu to submit the
iecoiu of such investigation upon filing of
motions foi ieconsiueiations of the piivate
iesponuents.

Responuent Belgauo, piesiuing }uuge of RTC
Toleuo City, contenus that RTC has the authoiity
to oiuei such a ieinvestigation since the cases
weie fileu by the C0NELEC as a public
piosecutoi anu not in the exeicise of its powei
to ueciue election contests.

C0NELEC claims that as an inuepenuent
constitutional bouy, only the SC may ieview its
actions in the investigation anu piosecution of
election offenses thus this petition foi ceitioiaii,
manuamus, anu piohibition.
The SC uismisseu the petition
foi lack of meiit. C0NELEC
may not iefuse to comply
with the oiuei of the tiial
couit iequiiing them to
conuuct a ieinvestigation on
the giounu that only the SC
may ieview its actions.

Sec 2(6), Aiticle IX-C anu the
0mnibus Election Coue vests
the C0NELEC powei of a
public piosecutoi with the
exclusive authoiity to
conuuct pieliminaiy
investigation anu piosecution
of election offenses
punishable unuei the Coue
befoie the competent Coue.

0nce C0NELEC conuucts the
pieliminaiy investigation anu
files the infoimation in the
piopei couit, the couit
acquiies juiisuiction ovei the
case. The C0NELEC may not
theieaftei conuuct a
ieinvestigation of the case
without the authoiity of oi
unless so oiueieu by the
couit.

Casebook note:
What may be piosecuteu by
C0NELEC.
Sec 2(6), Aiticle IX-C phiase
"wheie appiopiiate" leaves to
the legislatuie the powei to
ueteimine the kinu of election
offenses C0NELEC shall
piosecute exclusively oi
concuiiently with othei
piosecuting aims. (Banat v.
C0NELEC)











U"/ @?
!NOPQP!
%?2? B-?
;;RXCD
HI Y&'35


Tan, City Piosecutoi of Bavao City, was
uesignateu vice-Chaiiman of the City Boaiu of
Canvasseis of Bavao City by the C0NELEC foi
the 1992 elections.

0n the basis of the canvasseu votes, a ceitain
uaicia was pioclaimeu iepiesentative of the 2nu
Bistiict of Bavao City. Piivate iesponuent
Alteiauo, a canuiuate foi the position, fileu cases
questioning the valiuity of this pioclamation anu
accusing the membeis of the Boaiu of
Canvasseis of "unlawful, eiioneous, incomplete
anu iiiegulai canvass". The electoial piotest
befoie the BRET anu the ciiminal complaint foi
"Falsification of Public Bocuments anu violation
of the Anti-uiaft anu Coiiupt Piactices Act"
befoie the 0mbuusman weie both uismisseu.
The auministiative chaige foi "Nisconuuct,
Neglect of Buty, uioss Incompetence anu Acts
Inimical to the Seivice" befoie the C0NELEC is
still penuing.

Petitionei's motion to uismiss the
auministiative complaint on giounu of lack of
juiisuiction of the C0NELEC since he was an
employee unuei the Executive Bepaitment was
uenieu by the C0NELEC hence this petition.

SC uismisseu the instant
petition.

The auministiative case
penuing with the C0NELEC
ielates to Tan's peifoimance
of uuties as an election
canvassei anu not as a city
piosecutoi. C0NELEC has the
authoiity to supeivise
officials anu employees
iequiieu by law to peifoim
uuties ielateu to the conuuct
of elections. 0pon its
iecommenuation, the piopei
authoiity (heiein the B0}
Secietaiy) may eithei
suspenu oi iemove fiom
office one who is founu guilty
of violating election laws oi
failing to comply with
C0NELEC instiuctions,
oiueis, uecisions oi iulings.

C0NELEC, being in the best
position to assess how such
employees have peifoimeu
theii uuties, shoulu conuuct
the auministiative inquiiy.
Bivesting it of such
juiisuiction woulu be unuuly
uenying its iecommenuatoiy
powei anu possibly uue
piocess to the official oi
employee conceineu.

Neveitheless, C0NELEC may
meiely issue a
iecommenuation but the
conceineu Executive
Bepaitment has the ultimate
authoiity to impose
uisciplinaiy penalties.

Note also (fiom the case):
7Z#-43'&-/ M.-+ 'L$
1.&+&/"4 1L".5$# &# /-' "
Z". '- "/ "S+&/&#'."'&@$
,.-#$13'&-/ "# 'L$K ".$
$/'&.$4K &/S$,$/S$/'
,.-1$$S&/5#?




!"#$%& ()*+)*,& -*./$& 01"$23, 4%,25 6( 7869
!"#$%&%'%&"#() +(, -. /01 230#($
<
[&4-#Z"K"/ @?
!NOPQP!
%?2? B-?
;REXTW
HI
V$.+-#&#&+"
Kilosbayan fileu a lettei-complaint to the
C0NELEC impleauing piivate iesponuents foi
violation of election laws:
(1) Puno, et al. allegeuly misusing 7uN in funus
given the the Nu0 Philippine Youth Bealth anu
Spoits Bevelopment Founuation, Inc. (PYBSBFI)
thiough the Countiywiue Bevelopment Funu
(CBF) foi uiity election tiicks anu piactices in
the 1992 elections; anu
(2) Nalacaang illegally uiveiting PSSuN fiom
the CBF to the BILu which uisbuiseu the
amount shoitly befoie the elections.

Kilosbayan mainly suppoiteu its claims thiough
publisheu aiticles by a ceitain Benigno in a
Philippine Stai column imputing to PYBSBFI
Chaiiman Puno illegal election activities.

C0NELEC, aftei investigation of its Law
Bepaitment anu upon its iecommenuation,
uismisseu the chaiges against the piivate
iesponuents on the giounu of insufficiency of
eviuence to establish piobable cause. It
ieiteiateu that newspapei clippings (being the
only eviuence submitteu to piove the chaiges)
aie heaisay anu of no eviuentiaiy value.

Kilosbayan now asciibeu giave abuse of
uiscietion to C0NELEC foi iefusingneglecting
to gathei moie eviuence of the iesponuents'
culpability puisuant to its constitutional uuty to
piosecute election offenses anu foi issuing a
blanket exoneiation of all the iesponuents
uespite the piima facie eviuence.

SC uismisseu the petition.

C0NELEC uiu not commit any
act constituting giave abuse
of uiscietion in uismissing the
complaint as Kilosbayan
faileu to piove its case given
that the only eviuence
piesenteu was heaisay
eviuence consisting of the
newspapei aiticles.

Kilosbayan, as complainant,
has the obligation to piesent
eviuence in suppoit of its
allegations. Its claim that it
was meiely an "infoimant"
anu not the piivate
complainant with the buiuen
to piove piobable cause
boiueis on the iiuiculous. It
fileu a lettei-complaint,
submitteu uocumentaiy
eviuences, gave a list of "}ohn
Boes" impleaueu in its
complaint, anu fileu
numeious pleauings befoie
the C0NELEC as piivate
complainant.

Its asseition that it is the
C0NELEC that is uuty-bounu
to seaich foi eviuence to
piove the complaint being the
agency empoweieu to
investigate anu piosecute
cases involving election
offenses is uowniight
eiioneous. C0NELEC, as
investigatoi anu piosecutoi,
uoes not have the task to
physically seaich anu gathei
pioof in suppoit of a
complaint foi an allegeu
election offense.

UL$ 1-+,4"&/"/' L"# 'L$
Z3.S$/ '- M-44-\ 'L.-35L
L&# "113#"'&-/ "/S ,.-@$
L&# 1-+,4"&/'? If the
complainant fails to uo so, the
case must be uismisseu since
peisons accuseu aie
piesumeu innocent anu aie
not obligeu to iesponu to the
chaiges against them.
H$-,4$ @?
>3S5$ */'&/5
;EG :!27 GEE
];CCX^
(-$$'3= WN a pieliminaiy investigation
conuucteu by a Piovincial Election Supeivisoi
involving election offenses have to be couiseu
thiough the Piovincial Piosecutoi befoie the
RTC may take cognizance of the investigation
anu ueteimine whethei oi not piobable cause
exists.)

0n Febiuaiy 6, 1988, Nis. Euitha Baiba fileu a
lettei-complaint against 0IC-Nayoi Bominauoi
Regalauo of Tanjay, Negios 0iiental with the
Commission on Elections (C0NELEC), foi
allegeuly tiansfeiiing hei, a peimanent Nuising
Attenuant, uiaue I, to a veiy iemote baiangay
anu without obtaining piioi peimission oi
cleaiance fiom C0NELEC as iequiieu by law.

C0NELEC uiiecteu Atty. ueiaiuo Lituanas,
Piovincial Election Supeivisoi of Bumaguete
City, to conuuct pieliminaiy investigation baseu
on C0NELEC Resolution No. 17S2.

Atty. Lituanas founu a piima facie case against
the 0IC-Nayoi anu fileu a ciiminal case against
him. A waiiant of aiiest was issueu against the
lattei. Bowevei, tiial couit founu that Atty.
Lituanas was /-' "3'L-.&J$S '- S$'$.+&/$
,.-Z"Z4$ 1"3#$ ,3.#3"/' '- :$1'&-/ R 7.'? D
-M 'L$ ;CEG !-/#'&'3'&-/? Be was oiueieu to
submit anothei infoimation chaiging the same
offense with the \.&''$/ ",,.-@"4 -M 'L$
H.-@&/1&"4 H.-#$13'-.? Bowevei, he faileu to
uo so anu a motion foi ieconsiueiation was
uenieu. Bence this petition.

The iesponuent tiial couit justifies its stanu on
the giounu that the C0NELEC thiough its
Piovincial Election Supeivisoi lacks juiisuiction
to ueteimine the existence of piobable cause in
an election offense which it seeks to piosecute
in couit because while unuei Section 26S of the
0mnibus Election Coue, uuly authoiizeu legal
officeis of the C0NELEC have the exclusive
powei to conuuct pieliminaiy investigation of
all election offenses anu to piosecute the same,
the Piovincial Election Supeivisoi is not among
those listeu Section 2, Aiticle III, of the 1987
Constitution who have authoiity to ueteimine
existence of piobable cause.
SC iuleu that the PETITI0N IS
IS INPRESSEB WITB NERIT.


SC ieiteiateu the 2 kinus of
pieliminaiy investigation: 1)
investigation foi the
ueteimination of a sufficient
giounu foi the filing of the
infoimation 2) investigation
foi the ueteimination of a
piobable cause foi the
issuance of a waiiant of
aiiest. The lattei is moie
piopeily calleu pieliminaiy
examination. It is juuicial in
natuie anu is lougeu with the
juuge. Theiefoie, the
ueteimination of piobable
cause is a function of the
}uuge. It is not foi the
Piovincial Fiscal oi
Piosecutoi noi foi the
Election Supeivisoi to
asceitain. >#)? %@3 A'7B3 (#7
%@3 A'7B3 ()"#3 9(C3$ %@&$
73%309&#(%&"#. (Sec. 2 Ait. S of
the 1987 Constitution,)

In effect Aiticle IX C Section 2
of the 1987 Constitution
manuates the C0NELEC not
only to investigate but also to
piosecute cases of violation of
election laws. This means that
the C0NELEC is empoweieu
to conuuct pieliminaiy
investigations in cases
involving election offenses foi
the puipose of helping the
}uuge ueteimine piobable
cause anu foi filing an
infoimation in couit. UL&#
,-\$. &# $_143#&@$ \&'L
!NOPQP!. It shoulu be noteu
that it is only aftei a
pieliminaiy examination
conuucteu by the C0NELEC
thiough its officials oi its
ueputies that section 2,
Aiticle III of the 1987
Constitution comes in. This is
so, because, when the
application foi a waiiant of
!"#$%& ()*+)*,& -*./$& 01"$23, 4%,25 6( 7869
!"#$%&%'%&"#() +(, -. /01 230#($
D
aiiest is maue anu the
infoimation is fileu with the
couit, the juuge will then
ueteimine whethei oi not a
piobable cause exists foi the
issuance of a waiiant of
aiiest.

Bence, the H.-@&/1&"4
H.-#$13'-.= "# #31L=
"##3+$# /- .-4$ &/ 'L$
,.-#$13'&-/ -M $4$1'&-/
-MM$/#$#? If the Fiscal oi
Piosecutoi files an
infoimation chaiging an
election offense oi piosecutes
a violation of election law, it
is because he has been
ueputizeu by the C0NELEC.
Be uoes not uo so unuei the
sole authoiity of his office.
Theiefoie, the oiuei to get
the appioval of the Piovincial
Piosecutoi is
0NWARRANTEB.
!-.,3# @?
U"/-SZ"K"/
Petitioneis: 1) Nativiuau Coipuz, Auioia
Fonbuena, }osie Peialta, Ciesencia Pauua,
Bominauoi Bautista anu Leola Neog - membeis
of the Citizens Election Committee of Caba, La
0nion in the }anuaiy Su, 198u elections; 2)
Epifanio Castillejos - Biiectoi of the Buieau of
Bomestic Tiaue, S) Eugai Castillejos - then a
canuiuate anu latei electeu mayoi in the same
election.

Piivate iesponuent Esteban Nangasei, an
inuepenuent canuiuate foi vice Nayoi of the
same municipality sent a lettei to Piesiuent
Feiuinanu E. Naicos chaiging the petitioneis
with violation of 1987 Election Coue by
"electioneeiing anuoi campaigning insiue the
voting centeis uuiing the election." 0n
C0NELEC's instiuction, the Regional Election
Biiectoi of San Feinanuo, La 0nion, conuucteu a
foimal investigation anu submitteu its iepoit
iecommenuing to the C0NELEC the uismissal of
the complaint. Nangasei foimally withuiew his
chaiges fileu with the C0NELEC stating his
intention to ie-file it with the Tanoubayan.
C0NELEC uismisseu the complaint foi
insufficiency of eviuence.

Subsequently the assistant piovincial fiscal
staiteu a pieliminaiy investigation of a
complaint fileu by Nangasei with the
SC gianteu the petition.

It has iuleu in a lanumaik
case, Be }esus v. People, that
"the giant to the C0NELEC of
the powei, among otheis, to
enfoice anu auministei all
laws ielative to the conuuct of
election anu the concomittant
authoiity to investigate anu
piosecute election offenses is
not without compelling
ieason. The eviuent
constitutional intenument in
Z$#'-\&/5 'L&# ,-\$. '- 'L$
!NOPQP! &# '- &/#3.$ 'L$
M.$$= -.S$.4K "/S L-/$#'
1-/S31' -M $4$1'&-/#... To
uivest the C0NELEC of the
authoiity to investigate anu
piosecute offenses committeu
by public officials in ielation
to theii office woulu thus
seiiously impaii its
effectiveness in achieving this
cleai constitutional manuate."

It is of cleai intention to place
in the C0NELEC exclusive
juiisuiction to investigate anu
Tanoubayan against the same paities anu on the
same chaiges pieviously uismisseu by the
C0NELEC. The C0NELEC Legal Assistance 0ffice
moveu foi uismissal of the complaint. The
motion was uenieu. The TAN0BBAYAN
asseiting exclusive authoiity to piosecute the
case, stateu in a lettei to the C0NELEC
Chaiiman that a lawyei of the C0NELEC, if not
piopeily ueputizeu as a Tanoubayan piosecutoi,
has no authoiity to conuuct pieliminaiy
investigations anu piosecute offenses. A motion
foi ieconsiueiation was uenieu. Bence, 'L$
,.$#$/' ,$'&'&-/ M-. 1$.'&-.".& "/S
,.$4&+&/".K &/`3/1'&-/?
piosecute election offenses
committeu by any peison,
iiiespective of whethei the
offense is committeu in
ielation to his official uuties
oi not. In othei woius, it is
the natuie of the offense anu
not the peisonality of the
offenuei that matteis. 7#
4-/5 "# 'L$ -MM$/#$ &# "/
$4$1'&-/ -MM$/#$ `3.&#S&1'&-/
-@$. 'L$ #"+$ .$#'#
$_143#&@$4K \&'L 'L$
!NOPQP!= &/ @&$\ -M &'# "449
$+Z."1&/5 ,-\$. -@$. 'L$
1-/S31' -M $4$1'&-/#?
:$1'&-/ D
<"K'"/ @?
!NOPQP!
%2 B-?
;TDCWT
HI !".,&-

0n }une 1S, 1997, petitioneis iegisteieu foi the
Nay 1998 elections TWICE, as they hau initially
iegisteieu in the wiong piecinct (theii iesiuence
is not situateu within the juiisuiction of this
piecinct). Consequently, they weie given two
voteis Registiation Recoius Nos. each.
They sent a lettei to C0NELEC Assistant
Executive Biiectoi }oson to iequest foi auvice
on how to cancel pievious iegistiation. They
also explaineu the ieason anu ciicumstances of
theii seconu iegistiation anu expiesseu theii
intention to ieuiess the eiioi. The Election
0fficei of Cavite City foiwaiueu copies of
petitioneis' voteis Registiation Recoius to the
Piovincial Election Supeivisoi, Atty. Ravanzo foi
evaluation. Ravanzo enuoiseu the mattei to the
Regional Biiectoi foi piosecution. Eventually,
the Law Bepaitment enuoiseu the case to
Ravanzo foi iesolution. (Soiiy guys, hinui ko to
maalis cause he might ask foi the piocess -
Piovincial Election Supeivisoi to Regional
Biiectoi to Law Bepaitment)
0n }anuaiy 1u, 1998, Ravanzo iecommenueu
filing an infoimation foi uouble iegistiation
against petitioneis. In an 3# :(#5 meeting helu
on Novembei u9, 2uuu, the C0NELEC in its
Ninute Resolution No. uu-2281 affiimeu the
iecommenuation of Ravanzo. Petitioneis moveu
foi ieconsiueiation. The C0NELEC 3# :(#5
uenieu the motion. Bence, Reynato, Reynaluo,
anu Auiian Baytan fileu this petition foi
ceitioiaii with piayei foi tempoiaiy iestiaining
oiuei anu pieliminaiy injunction is the
Resolution uateu }une S, 2uu2 of the
Commission on Elections 3# :(#5 in E.0. Case
No. 97-SuS. In its assaileu Resolution, the
SC iuleu that the petition is
BEREFT 0F NERIT.

Sec. S, Ait. IX-C manuates
C0NELEC to ueciue cases fiist
in uivision, anu then upon
motion foi ieconsiueiation 3#
:(#5, ,"%: when the
C0NELEC exeicises its quasi-
juuicial poweis (election
cases, incluuing pie-
pioclamation contioveisies).
Bowevei, Section 2(6), Aiticle
IX-C empoweis C0NELEC to
"piosecute cases of violations
of election laws." The
piosecution of election law
violatois involves the
exeicise of the C0NELEC's
"S+&/&#'."'&@$ ,-\$.#?
Thus, the C0NELEC 3# :(#5
can uiiectly appiove the
iecommenuation of its Law
Bepaitment to file the
ciiminal infoimation foi
uouble iegistiation against
petitioneis in the instant case.
Theie is no constitutional
iequiiement that the filing of
the ciiminal infoimation be
fiist ueciueu by any of the
uivisions of the C0NELEC.
The seconu sentence of
Section S is N0T applicable in
auministiative cases, like the
instant case wheie the
!"#$%& ()*+)*,& -*./$& 01"$23, 4%,25 6( 7869
!"#$%&%'%&"#() +(, -. /01 230#($
E
C0NELEC 3# :(#5 uenieu the motion to
ieconsiuei Ninute Resolution No. uu-2281
uateu Novembei 9, 2uuu oiueiing the Law
Bepaitment to file ciiminal cases foi "uouble
iegistiation" against petitioneis.
ISS0E: Biu C0NELEC violate Sec. S of Ait IX-C of
the Constitution in ueciuing on this case en
banc.
C0NELEC is ueteimining
whethei piobable cause
exists to chaige petitioneis
foi violation of the piovision
of the Election Coue
piohibiting uouble
iegistiation.
<"4&/S-/5 @?
!NOPQP!
%?2? B-#?
;TDCC;9CR
HI U&/5"
Petitionei Anwai Balinuong, piivate iesponuent
Aklima Balinuong, anu a ceitain Amii-0uen
Balinuong weie half biotheis who weie
canuiuates foi Nayoi of the Nunicipality of
Nalabang, Lanao uel Sui in the 2uu1 elections.
Petitionei Anwai was pioclaimeu the winning
canuiuate by a maigin of S2 votes ovei Aklima.

0pon an amenueu petition by Aklima seeking
the annulment of the election iesults in S
piecincts anu the pioclamation of Anwai,
C0NELEC piomulgateu the heiein challengeu
iesolution (1) totally excluuing election ietuin
foi a piecinct 8uA anu (2) awaiuing to canuiuate
Amii-0uen all the 88 votes pieviously cieuiteu
to Anwai fiom piecinct 47A48A on giounu that
they weie alteieu by a white substance.
C0NELEC also oiueieu the Nunicipal Boaiu of
Canvasseis to ieconvene anu pioclaim the
winning canuiuate.

Anwai fileu the piesent petition claiming that
C0NELEC acteu with giave abuse of uiscietion
amounting to lack oi excess of juiisuiction M-.
'"a&/5 1-5/&J"/1$ -M 'L$ 1-/#-4&S"'$S 1"#$#
&/ 'L$ M&.#' &/#'"/1$ \&'L-3' .$M$..&/5 'L$+
'- $&'L$. -/$ -M &'# S&@&#&-/#= &/ @&-4"'&-/ -M
'L$ !-/#'&'3'&-/b anu seconuly in taking action
on the ietuins foi the 2 piecincts although
Aklima uiu not object to theii inclusion foi
canvass eailiei, in violation of RA 7166
aggiavateu by its selective oi uispaiate
tieatment of the 2 ietuins. Be auueu that the
piopei couise of action, assuming C0NELEC
coulu take cognizance of the ietuins, was to
oiuei the iecount of the votes puisuant to the
0mnibus Election Coue (0EC).
SC gianteu the petition anu
set asiue the C0NELEC
iesolution, oiueiing the
C0NELEC to assign the cases
to one of its uivisions foi
iesolution.

C0NELEC en banc uoes not
have the iequisite authoiity
to heai anu ueciueu pie-
pioclamation contioveisies at
the fiist instance. It thus acteu
without juiisuiction, oi with
giave abuse of uiscietion foi
uoing so puisuant to Section
S, Aiticle IX-C which iequiies
election cases, incluuing pie-
pioclamation contioveisies,
to be heaiu anu ueciueu fiist
at the uivision level.

0thei issue:
Insteau of puisuing a
selective oi uispaiate
appioach to the 2 ietuins
(excluuing the ietuins fiom
piecinct 8uA anu uenying
petitionei Anwai all of the 88
votes fiom piecinct 47A48A
theieby making Aklima
"win"), it shoulu have
examineu the othei copies of
the ietuins oi oiueieu a vote
iecount as oiuaineu by the
0EC.

Notes fiom the casebook:
0nly C0NELEC en banc
uecisions may be biought to
the SC on ceitioiaii but when
a uivision ueciues a motion
foi ieconsiueiation (violating
the Constitution), the iuling is
a complete nullity anu may be
biought to the SC.

If a case foi the C0NELEC en
banc is eiioneously fileu with
a uivision, it may be
automatically elevateu to the
C0NELEC en banc. This is not
pioviueu foi in the C0NELEC
Rules of Pioceuuie but is not
piohibiteu.

The conuuct of a pieliminaiy
investigation befoie the filing
of an infoimation in couit
uoes not involve the exeicise
of aujuuicatoiy function. It is
only in the exeicise of
aujuuicatoiy oi quasi-juuicial
poweis that the C0NELEC is
manuateu to heai anu ueciue
cases fiist by uivision anu
then, upon motion foi
ieconsiueiation, by the
C0NELEC en banc.
:"/&S"S @
!NOPQP!

The City of Baguio anu the Coiuilleias weie to
take pait in a plebiscite foi the iatification of an
0iganic Act that woulu pioviue foi the
Coiuilleia Autonomous Region. Because of this
plebiscite, C0NELEC issueu a Resolution to
govein the conuuct of the plebiscite. Incluueu
heie is the piohibition of a mass columnist,
commentatoi, announcei oi peisonality to use
his column oi iauio oi television time to
campaign foi oi against the plebiscite issues
(Sec 19 of Resolution No. 2167). Saniuau, a
columnist, contenueu that this piohibition was a
iestiaint on his constitutionally-guaianteeu
fieeuom of the piess. Be states that as a
columnist, his column woulu obviously ieflect
his views anu beliefs on any issue he wiites
about. Be also aigues that meuia piactitioneis
shoulu be alloweu to expiess theii views, beliefs,
anu opinions on issues in a plebiscite so that it
coulu help the goveinment uisseminate
infoimation anu heai all siues of the issue.

Tempoiaiy iestiaining oiuei
enjoining C0NELEC fiom
enfoicing the piohibition (Sec
19 of Resolution No. 2167).
UL$ ,-\$. 5."/'$S ZK 'L$
!-/#'&'3'&-/ '- !NOPQP!
\&'L .$5".S '- #3,$.@&#&-/
-M +$S&" "/S ,3Z4&1 3'&4&'&$#
\"# '- "@-&S 5&@&/5 "/K
3/S3$ "S@"/'"5$ /, $
2$"#3#$/) &/ '$.+# -M
"S@$.'&#&/5 #,"1$ -. ."S&-
"/S '$4$@&#&-/ '&+$b &' "4#-
"44-\$S $c3"4 -,,-.'3/&'K=
'&+$ "/S #,"1$= 'L$ .&5L' '-
.$,4K= &/143S&/5 .$"#-/"Z4$
"/S $c3"4 ."'$# M-. ,3Z4&1
1"+,"&5/# "/S M-.3+#
$;,"1 2$"#3#$/)<1 Saniuau
is not a canuiuate.
Fuitheimoie, plebiscite
issues aie matteis of public
concein anu impoitance, a
plebiscite shoulu not be
buiueneu by iestiictions on
the foium wheie the iight to
expiession may be exeiciseu.






!"#$%& ()*+)*,& -*./$& 01"$23, 4%,25 6( 7869
!"#$%&%'%&"#() +(, -. /01 230#($
F
O"+".&4 @?
6-+&/5-

Petitionei Namaiil is being helu liable by the
Commission on Auuit foi Php 44, S1S.9u. The
basis foi this is Namaiil's eiiois in evaluation
anu computation in the peifoimance of his
uuties (EvaluatoiComputei of the Lanu
Tianspoitation 0ffice) which iesulteu in unuei
collection of iegistiation fees, license fees,
penalties, etc of the LT0. When Namaiil wanteu
to ietiie eaily anu get his sepaiation pay, C0A
wanteu to withholu the Php 44, S1S.9u. Namaiil
contenus that he cannot be helu liable because
he is not an "accountable officei," because his
woik was puiely cleiical oi mechanical, that he
nevei came into possession of the money, anu he
uiu not act in bau faith oi with gioss negligence.

The issue now is to claiify the iesponsibility anu
poweis of the C0A unuei the Constitution.

!N7 &# 5&@$/ d'L$ $_143#&@$
"3'L-.&'K= #3Z`$1' '- 'L$
4&+&'"'&-/#e '- S$M&/$ 'L$
#1-,$ -M &'# "3S&' f
$_"+&/"'&-/= $#'"Z4&#L 'L$
'$1L/&c3$ "/S +$'L-S#
.$c3&.$S 'L$.$M-.= "# \$44
"# ,.-+345"'$ "11-3/'&/5 f
"3S&'&/5 .34$# "/S
.$534"'&-/#=e" The
veiification of the coiiectness
of the evaluation anu
computation of the fees +
penalties that LT0 can collect
aie paits of the functions of
C0A, because C0A examines
anu auuits ievenue accounts.
C0A can thus piopeily holu
Namaiil liable.

Also, state auuit is not limiteu
to auuiting just accountable
officeis anu the settlement of
accounts, but &/143S$#
"11-3/'&/5 M3/1'&-/# "/S
"S-,'&/5 &/'$./"4 1-/'.-4#
'- #$$ '- &' 'L"' 1-..$1' M$$#
"/S ,$/"4'&$# S3$ 'L$
5-@$./+$/' ".$ 1-44$1'$S?
6&/51-/5 @?
!-++&##&-/$
. %3&/5-/"=
>.?

Bingcong auvanceu the payments foi seivices
ienueieu by Layson foi the ienovation anu
impiovement of the Buieau of Tieasuiy, Iloilo
City. Layson was hiieu as caipentei anu
electiician on "pakyao" basis. ("Pakyao" basis
means you pay the peison uepenuing on the
amount of piouuct oi woik he has uone, as
opposeu to paying them pei uay iegaiuless of
what they weie able to achieve. In the
Philippines it's auvantageous cause some
woikeis can puiposefully uelay woik so that
they have moie uays of employment anu get
paiu foi those uays.) C0A uisalloweu
ieimbuisement of the payments Bincong
auvanceu. The laboi contiacts with Layson
amounteu to Php 6, S74. Bingcong appealeu anu
the Chaiiman of C0A still affiimeu the
uisallowance because it was "excessive anu
uisauvantageous to the goveinment," although
he loweieu the amount uisalloweu to Php 4, 276
(insteau of the oiiginal Php 6, S74). Because
C0A still affiimeu the uisallowance, Bingcong
biought it to the SC, assailing the uisallowances
as invaliu foi being a usuipation of a
management function anu an impaiiment of
contiact.
The uecision of C0A is set
asiue. The laboi contiact was
"pakyao" basis, but the
computation anu tiansaction
was auuiteu on a uaily
minimum wage iate basis.
This iesulteu in uiffeient
costs of laboi foi casuals
imposeu, Layson's skill as an
electiician anu plumbei was
not piopeily consiueieu, the
assistance of 2 othei
caipenteis who woikeu with
Layson even on Satuiuays
was uisiegaiueu, etc :(
Fuitheimoie, Bingcong's
choice to hiie on a "pakyao"
basis (oi hiiing Layson as a
casual) shows he is awaie of
goveinment inteiests anu
showeu positive effoit to cut
uown costs.


H-44-#- @?
%"/5"/


C0A uisalloweu the payment of legal seivices
ienueieu by Atty. Satoiie to the National Powei
Coipoiation amounting to Php 28S, 76S.S9. This
was because the contiact foi Satoiie's seivices
was uone without piioi confoimity anu
acquiescence of the 0ffice of the Solicitoi
ueneial oi the uoveinment Coipoiate Counsel;
the contiact wasn't suppoiteu as well by
Ceitificate of Availability of Funus, incluuing
also the wiitten concuiience of C0A. The
wiitten confoimity is iequiieu because C0A
Ciiculai No. 86-2SS piohibits goveinment
agencies fiom hiiing piivate lawyeis "to hanule
theii legal cases". The issue now is whethei Atty.
Satoiie falls unuei this piohibition, consiueiing
he only hanuleu iight-of-way matteis (meaning
no couit cases). Be contenus also that he acteu
in goou faith. C0A iuleu that Atty. Satoiie, as
well as Bi. viiay (NPC Piesiuent anu the
contiacting paity), among otheis, must pay the
Php 28S, 76S.S9 themselves.


Petition is uenieu. B- ,3Z4&1
M3/S# \&44 Z$ S&#Z3.#$S M-.
'L$ ,"K+$/' -M ,.&@"'$
4"\K$.# 3/4$## ,.&-. '- 'L$
L&.&/5 -M #"&S 4"\K$.= 'L$.$
&# " \.&''$/ 1-/M-.+&'K "/S
"1c3&$#1$/1$ M.-+ 'L$
:-4&1&'-. %$/$."4 -. 'L$
%-@$./+$/'"4 !-3/#$4?
(Piivate lawyeis can be hiieu
in special cases only cause of
theii expeitise in ceitain
fielus.) This is in line with
C0A's constitutional manuate
to piomulgate accounting anu
auuiting iules anu iegulations
incluuing those foi the
pievention anu uisallowance
of iiiegulai, unnecessaiy,
excessive, extiavagant oi
unconscionable expenuituies
oi uses of goveinment funus
anu piopeities. Also, Atty.
Satoiie is consiueieu to have
ienueieu legal seivices cause
legal seivices uoesn't mean
just litigation oi hanuling of
cases.
6"/@&44$
O".&'&+$ */1?
@? !N7 ;GT
:!27 GX;
];CEC^
Biief backgiounu of the case: In the eaily pait of
1988, the Philippine National 0il Company
(PN0C), thiough its Boaiu of Biiectois, passeu a
iesolution authoiizing the sale by public biuuing
of its fouiteen-yeai olu tuibine tankei nameu
"TT Anuies Bonifacio" uue to olu age anu the
high cost of maintenance. Accoiuingly, a
Bisposal Committee was cieateu to unueitake
the auction sale subject to existing iules anu
iegulations of the C0A. Petitionei Banville
Naiitime Inc was the sole biuuei anu the
Bisposal Committee ueclaieu Banville as the
winnei anu uiiecteu them to tiansmit to PN0C
1u% of theii biu which they immeuiately
complieu with. Bowevei, C0A oiueieu foi a
iebiuuing foi the sale of vessel puisuant to PB
No. 1S94 which states that theie must be at least
2 competing biuueis. In the event that theie is
only 1 biuuei, the pioject will be ieauveitiseu
anew foi biuuing. Banville sought help fiom
PN0C to contemplate appeal of C0A's uiiective,
howevei, PN0C uiu not iesponu. Bence, this
petition foi ceitioiaii.

UL$ &##3$ &/ 'L&# 1"#$ &# g(B 'L$ ,3Z4&1
.$#,-/S$/' !N7 1-++&''$S 5."@$ "Z3#$ -M
S&#1.$'&-/ \L$/ &' .34$S 'L"' 'L$.$ \"# "
SC iuleu that it has no
juiisuiction as to how C0A
inteipiets the teim "public
biuuing" anu what constitutes
its "failuie." No less than the
Constitution has oiuaineu
that the !N7 #L"44 L"@$
$_143#&@$ "3'L-.&'K '-
S$M&/$ 'L$ #1-,$ of its auuit
anu examination, establish
the techniques anu methous
iequiieu theiefoie, anu
piomulgate accounting anu
auuiting iules anu
iegulations, incluuing those
foi the pievention anu
uisallowance of iiiegulai,
unnecessaiy, excessive,
extiavagant, oi
unconscionable expenuituies,
oi use of goveinment funus
anu piopeities.

The C0A, iealizing that the
applicable law anu iules anu
iegulations as to the uisposal
of goveinment assets faileu to
!"#$%& ()*+)*,& -*./$& 01"$23, 4%,25 6( 7869
!"#$%&%'%&"#() +(, -. /01 230#($
G
M"&43.$ -M Z&SS&/5 \L$/ -/4K -/$ Z&S \"#
#3Z+&''$S "/S #3Z#$c3$/'4K -.S$.$S .$9
Z&SS&/5?
pioviue foi a cleai uefinition
of "failuie of public biuuing,"
of goveinment assets,
piopeily consiueieu the
uefinition unuei the
implementing iules of P.B.
1S94 which goveins
infiastiuctuie piojects to be
applicable in the uisposition
of goveinment assets.

*/ 'L$ 1"#$ "' Z".= 'L$.$ &#
/- #L-\&/5 'L"' 'L$ !N7
1-++&''$S 5."@$ "Z3#$ -M
S&#1.$'&-/? UL$ !-3.' L-4S#
'L"' " #$1-/S ,3Z4&1
Z&SS&/5 &# -.S"&/$S #- 'L"'
"44 5-@$./+$/'
'."/#"1'&-/# \-34S Z$
1-+,$'&'&@$ "/S "Z-@$
Z-".S?
2"+-# @?
7c3&/-
DC :!27 RTF
];CG;^

This is a case about uismissing an action foi
530%&"0(0& anu piohibition against the then
iesponuent Fiscal of Rizal, Benjamin B. Aquino,
to pievent him fiom conuucting a pieliminaiy
investigation.

UL$ &##3$ "' L"/S &# \L$'L$. 'L$.$ &# "/
$/1.-"1L+$/' -/ 'L$ 1-/#'&'3'&-/"4
,.$.-5"'&@$# -M 'L$ 73S&'-. %$/$."4 if, aftei
the final appioval of ceitain voucheis by him
without an appeal being maue, an inquiiy by a
piovincial fiscal '- S$'$.+&/$ \L$'L$.
1.&+&/"4 4&"Z&4&'K M-. +"4@$.#"'&-/ 'L.-35L
M"4#&M&1"'&-/ -M ,3Z4&1= -MM&1&"4 "/S
1-++$.1&"4 S-13+$/'# Z"#$S 'L$.$-/ 1-34S
4"\M344K Z$ 1-/S31'$S?

In the ceitioiaii anu piohibition pioceeuing
fileu with the lowei couit, petitioneis, assaileu
the juiisuiction of cases Benjamin Aquino, then
Piovincial Fiscal of Rizal, to conuuct the
pieliminaiy investigation of the allegeu
commission of malveisation thiough
falsification of public, official anu commeicial
uocuments imputeu to them by the othei
iesponuent, then the Commanuing ueneial,
Philippine Aimy, Foit Bonifacio, Rizal, Romeo
Espino. UL$ Z"#&# M-. #31L " +-'&-/ \"# 'L"'
3/S$. 'L$ !-/#'&'3'&-/= 'L$ 73S&'-. %$/$."4
&# /-' -/4K @$#'$S \&'L 'L$ S3'K '- $_"+&/$
-. "3S&' "44 $_,$/S&'3.$# -M M3/S# -M 'L$
%-@$./+$/'= Z3' "4#- '- "3S&' -. &/@$#'&5"'$
"/S hZ.&/5 '- 'L$ "''$/'&-/ -M 'L$ ,.-,$.
"S+&/&#'."'&@$ -MM&1$. $_,$/S&'3.$# -M M3/S#
SC affiimeu the petition.

The 73S&'-. %$/$."4, as
noteu, is vesteu with the
powei to examine, auuit anu
settle all accounts peitaining
to the ievenues anu ieceipts
fiom whatevei souice, anu to
auuit, in accoiuance with law
anu auministiative
iegulations" all expenuituies
of funus oi piopeity
peitaining to oi helu in tiust
by the goveinment as well as
the piovinces oi
municipalities theieof. That is
one thing. UL$
"#1$.'"&/+$/' -M \L$'L$. "
1.&+$ 1-++&''$S "/S ZK
\L-+ &# S$M&/&'$4K "/-'L$.?

It is the iesponsibility of his
office to exact obeuience to
any law that allows the
expenuituie of public funus.
Be seives as the necessaiy
check to make ceitain that no
uepaitment of the
goveinment, especially its
main spenuing aim, the
Executive, exceeus the
statutoiy limits of the
appiopiiation to which it is
entitleu. UL"' &# 'L$ ,3.,-#$
-. ,.-,$.'K \L&1L &/ L&# -,&/&-/ ".$
&..$534".= 3//$1$##".K= $_1$##&@$= -.
$_'."@"5"/'?h It is theii contention that unuei
the above, it is incumbent on the Auuitoi
ueneial to ueteimine whethei ciiminal
iesponsibility foi the anomaly uiscoveieu in the
couiage of his auuit oi examination of the
accounts lies. It was fuithei contenueu that the
uecisions of the Auuitoi-ueneial on the
coiiectness of the voucheis on which the allegeu
of cases weie baseu having become final anu
iiievocable, not even the couits coulu substitute
its finuings.
"/S $/S 1"44&/5 M-. 'L$
1.$"'&-/ -M #31L "/ -MM&1$=
1$.'"&/4K /-' 'L$
$/M-.1$+$/' -M 1.&+&/"4
#'"'3'$#?






6<H @? !N7
%2 B-? EEWDT
]RXXR^
This is a petition foi ieview on ceitioiaii of the
lettei-uecision of the Chaiiman of the
Commission on Auuit

(C0A) anu the lettei-
uecision of the C0A 3# :(#5. piohibiting the
Bevelopment Bank of the Philippines (BBP)
fiom hiiing a piivate exteinal auuitoi. The issue
at hanu is \L$'L$. -. /-' 'L$ 1-/#'&'3'&-/"4
,-\$. -M 'L$ !N7 '- $_"+&/$ "/S "3S&' 'L$
6<H &# $_143#&@$ "/S ,.$143S$# " 1-/13..$/'
"3S&' -M 'L$ 6<H ZK " ,.&@"'$ $_'$./"4
"3S&'-.?

In 1986, the Philippines obtaineu fiom the
Woilu Bank an Economic Recoveiy Loan (ERL)
in the amount of 0S$S1u million. The ERL was
intenueu to suppoit the iecoveiy of the
Philippine economy, at that time suffeiing
seveiely fiom the financial ciisis that hit the
countiy uuiing the lattei pait of the Naicos
iegime.

As a conuition foi gianting the loan, the Woilu
Bank iequiieu the Philippine goveinment to
iehabilitate the BBP which was then sauuleu
with huge non-peifoiming loans. Accoiuingly,
the goveinment committeu to iehabilitate the
BBP to make it a viable anu self-sustaining
financial institution in iecognition of its
uevelopmental iole in the economy. The
goveinment's commitment was embouieu in the
H")&5? I%(%393#% J"0 %@3 K3L3)"693#% 2(#C "J %@3
H@&)&66&#3$ which stateu in pait:
"4. Fuitheimoie, like all financial institutions
unuei Cential Bank supeivision, BBP will now
be iequiieu to have a piivate exteinal auuit, anu
its Boaiu of Biiectois will now be openeu to
auequate piivate sectoi iepiesentation. It is
hopeu that with these commitments, BBP can
avoiu the uifficulties of the past anu can function
as a competitive anu viable financial institution
within the Philippine financial system."

BBP's petition is
NERIT0RI00S.

The cleai anu unmistakable
conclusion fiom a ieauing of
the entiie Section 2 is that the
C0A's powei to examine anu
auuit is non-exclusive. 0n the
othei hanu, the C0A's
authoiity to uefine the scope
of its auuit, piomulgate
auuiting iules anu
iegulations, anu uisallow
unnecessaiy expenuituies is
exclusive.

The expiess language of the
Constitution, anu the cleai
intent of its fiameis, point to
only one inuubitable
conclusion - the C0A uoes not
have the exclusive powei to
examine anu auuit
goveinment agencies. The
fiameis of the Constitution
weie fully awaie of the neeu
to allow inuepenuent piivate
auuit of ceitain goveinment
agencies in auuition to the
C0A auuit, as when theie is a
piivate investment in a
goveinment-contiolleu
coipoiation, oi when a
goveinment coipoiation is
piivatizeu oi publicly listeu,
oi as in the case at bai when
the goveinment boiiows
money fiom abioau.

Bowevei, uespite the Cential
Bank's concuiient
juiisuiction ovei goveinment
!"#$%& ()*+)*,& -*./$& 01"$23, 4%,25 6( 7869
!"#$%&%'%&"#() +(, -. /01 230#($
M
Puisuant to Cential Bank Ciiculai No. 1124 anu
the goveinment's commitment to the Woilu
Bank, BBP Chaiiman }esus Estanislao wiote the
C0A seeking appioval of the BBP's engagement
of a piivate exteinal auuitoi in auuition to the
C0A.

The Philippine goveinment anu Woilu Bank
negotiating panels ieacheu final agieement on
the piivate auuit of the BBP.

Bowevei, a change in the leaueiship of the C0A
suuuenly ieveiseu the couise of events. 0n Apiil
27, 1987, the new C0A Chaiiman, Eufemio
Bomingo, wiote the Cential Bank uoveinoi
piotesting the Cential Bank's issuance of
Ciiculai No. 1124 which allegeuly encioacheu
upon the C0A's constitutional anu statutoiy
powei to auuit goveinment agencies. The new
C0A Chaiiman wiote the BBP Chaiiman that the
C0A iesiuent auuitois weie unuei instiuctions
to uisallow any payment to the piivate auuitoi
whose seivices weie unconstitutional, illegal
anu unnecessaiy puisuant to Aiticle IX-B of the
constitution. Buiing the penuency of the BBP
Chaiiman's note-iequest foi concuiience, the
BBP paiu the billings of the piivate auuitoi in
the total amount of P487,S21.14 uespite the
objection of the C0A.

BBP fileu this petition foi ieview with piayei foi
a tempoiaiy iestiaining oiuei, assailing the C0A
lettei-uecisions foi being contiaiy to the
Constitution anu existing laws.
banks, the !N7i# "3S&' #'&44
,.$@"&4# -@$. 'L"' -M 'L$
!$/'."4 <"/a #&/1$ 'L$ !N7
&# 'L$ 1-/#'&'3'&-/"44K
+"/S"'$S "3S&'-. -M
5-@$./+$/' Z"/a#? Anu in
matteis falling unuei the
seconu paiagiaph of Section
2, Aiticle IX-B of the
Constitution, the C0A's
juiisuiction is exclusive. Thus,
the Cential Bank is uevoiu of
authoiity to allow oi uisallow
expenuituies of goveinment
banks since this function
belongs exclusively to the
C0A.