National Amnesty Commission vs. Commission On Audit

11. National Amnesty Commission vs. Commission on Audit, et al.
(2004)
FACTS:
 Petitioner National Amnesty Commission (NAC) is a government agency created on March 25, 1994 by
then President Ramos through Proclamation No. 247. The NAC is tasked to receive, process and review
amnesty applications, and composed of seven members (1 Chairperson, 3 regular members appointed by
the President, and the Secretaries of Justice, DND, and DILG as ex officio members)
 After attending initial meetings, the three ex officio members turned over their said responsibilities to
their representatives who were paid honoraria beginning December 12, 1994.
 Almost three years later, NAC resident auditor Eulalia disallowed on audit the payment of honoraria to
these representatives amounting to P255,750 pursuant to a COA memorandum.
 On April 28, 1999, the NAC passed an Admin Order which was approved by then President Estrada,
Section I, Rule II of which provides:
1. The NAC shall be composed of 7 members, a Chairperson appointed by the President, 3
Commissioners who shall be appointed by the President, and 3 ex-officio members).
2. The ex officio members may designate their representatives to the Commission. Said
Representatives shall be entitled to per diems, allowances, bonuses and other benefits as may be
authorized by law.
 Petitioner invoked the AO in assailing before the COA the rulings of the resident auditor disallowing the
payment of honoraria to the ex officio members’ representatives, to no avail.
 On March 14, 2003, the NAC filed the present petitioner contending that COA committed grave abuse of
discretion in applying the COA memorandum to the representatives and disallowing payment of honoraria
to them on the ground that they lack authority.
ISSUE:
 W/N the Secretaries of National Defense, Interior and Local Government, and Justice are entitled to hold
office in an ex officio capacity (actually not really an issue since what was questioned was entitlement of
the representatives to honoraria)
HELD:
 Yes, the Secretaries of National Defense, Interior and Local Government, and Justice are entitled to hold
office in an ex officio capacity. In the earlier Civil Liberties Union case, the SC ruled that Cabinet
Secretaries, their deputies and assistants may not hold any other office or employment. It also declared
EO 284 unconstitutional insofar as it allows Cabinet members, their deputies and assistants to hold other
office in addition to their primary office and to receive compensation thereof. The same became final and
executory on August 19, 1991. The same prohibition is reiterated in Sections 54 and 56 of the
Administrative Code of 1987.
 However, the prohibition on multiple offices does not cover offices in ex officio capacity, provided that
there is no additional compensation. The term “ex officio” means “from office, by virtue of office.” It
refers to an “authority derived from official character merely, not expressly conferred upon the individual
character, but rather annexed to the official position.” It also denotes an “act done in an official character,
or as a consequence of office, and without any other appointment or authority than that conferred by the
office.
An “ex officio member of a board is one who is a member by virtue of his title to a certain office, and
without further warrant or appointment. The ex officio position, being actually and legally contemplation
part of the principal office, it follows that the official concerned has not right to receive additional
compensation for his services in the said position. The reason is that these services are already paid for
and covered by the compensation attached to his principal office.
 In the present case, the representatives were sitting in ex officio capacity, which is allowed under the
Constitution. However, they have no right to receive any form of honoraria from such designation since
they are covered by two prohibitions:
1. Absence of a law allowing them to receive additional compensation; and
2. Blanket prohibition on cabinet members, their deputies and assistants.
 Furthermore, in de la Cruz v. COA17 and Bitonio v. COA, the Court upheld COA's disallowance of the
payment of honoraria and per diems to the officers concerned who sat as ex officio members or
alternates. The agent, alternate or representative cannot have a better right than his principal, the ex
officio member. The laws, rules, prohibitions or restrictions that cover the ex officio member apply with
equal force to his representative. In short, since the ex officio member is prohibited from receiving
additional compensation for a position held in an ex officio capacity, so is his representative likewise
restricted.

National Amnesty Commission vs. Commission On Audit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

National Amnesty Commission vs. Commission On Audit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

National Amnesty Commission vs. Commission On Audit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11. National Amnesty Commission vs. Commission on Audit, et al.

You might also like