Sanchez vs. COA
Facts: In 1991, Congress passed
Republic Act No. 7180 (R.A. 7180) otherwise known as the General Appropriations
Act of 1992. This law provided an appropriation for the DILG under Title XIII
and set aside the amount of P75,000,000.00 for the DILG's Capability Building
Program. On 11 November 1991, Atty. Hiram C. Mendoza (Atty. Mendoza), Project
Director of the Ad Hoc Task Force for Inter-Agency Coordination to Implement
Local Autonomy, informed then Deputy Executive Secretary Dionisio de la Serna
of the proposal to constitute and implement a "shamrock" type task
force to implement local autonomy institutionalized under the Local Government
Code of 1991. The proposal was accepted by the Deputy Executive Secretary and
attested by then DILG Secretary Cesar N. Sarino, one of the petitioners herein,
who consequently issued a memorandum for the transfer and remittance to the
Office of the President of the sum of P300,000.00 for the operational expenses
of the task force. An additional cash advance of P300,000.00 was requested.
Upon post-audit conducted by Department auditor Iluminada M.V. Fabroa, however,
the amounts were disallowed.
Issue: What are two essential requisites
in order that a transfer of appropriation may be allowed? Are those present in
this case?
Ruling: Contrary to another submission in
this case, the President, Chief Justice, Senate President, and
the heads
of constitutional commissions need not first prove and declare the existence of
savings before transferring funds, the Court in Philconsa v. Enriquez, supra,
categorically declared that the Senate President and the Speaker of the House
of Representatives, as the case may be, shall approve the realignment (of
savings). However, "[B]efore giving their stamp of approval, these two
officials will have to see to it that: (1) The funds to be realigned or
transferred are actually savings in the items of expenditures from which the
same are to be taken; and (2) The transfer or realignment is for the purpose of
augmenting the items of expenditure to which said transfer or realignment is to
be made.”
The
absence of any item to be augmented starkly projects the illegality of the
diversion of the funds and the profligate spending thereof.
With the
foregoing considerations, it is clear that no valid transfer of the Fund to the
Office of the President could have occurred in this case as there was neither
allegation nor proof that the amount transferred was savings or that the
transfer was for the purpose of augmenting the item to which the transfer was
made.
Further,
we find that the use of the transferred funds was not in accordance with the
purposes laid down by the Special Provisions of R.A. 7180.
No comments:
Post a Comment