Section 4.

Supervision/Regulation of Public Utilities, Media Grants, Privileges

Unido v. COMELEC, 104 SCRA 17
MAIN POINT:

Sanidad v. COMELEC, 181 SCRA 529 (1990)

MAIN POINT:

Philippine Press Institute v. COMELEC, GR No. 119654, May 22, 1995

MAIN POINT:
To compel print media companies to donate Comelec space of the dimensions amounts to taking of private personal
property for public use or purposes without just compensation.

ABS-CBN v. COMELEC, GR No. 133486, Jan. 28, 2000

MAIN POINT:
An exit poll is a species of electoral survey conducted by qualified individuals or groups of individuals for the purpose of
determining the probable result of an election by confidentially asking randomly selected voters whom they have voted for,
immediately after they have officially cast their ballots. The results of the survey are announced to the public, usually through
the mass media, to give an advance overview of how, in the opinion of the polling individuals or organizations, the electorate
voted.
The contention of public respondent that exit polls indirectly transgress the sanctity and the secrecy of the ballot is
offtangent to the real issue. Petitioner does not seek access to the ballots cast by the voters. The ballot system of voting is
not at issue here. Clearly, what is forbidden is the association of voters with their respective votes, for the purpose of assuring
that the votes have been cast in accordance with the instructions of a third party. This result cannot, however, be achieved
merely through the voters verbal and confidential disclosure to a pollster of whom they have voted for.
There was no evidence presented proving that the presence of exit poll reporters near an election precinct tends to
create disorder or confuse the voters.

SWS v. COMELEC, GR No. 147571, May 5, 2001

FACTS:
To be sure, Section 5.4 of Republic Act 9006 (Fair Election Act) lays a prior restraint on freedom of speech, expression, and
the press by prohibiting the publication of election survey results affecting candidates within the prescribed periods of fifteen
(15) days immediately preceding a national election and seven (7) days before a local election.
MAIN POINT:
The prohibition against surveys within the specified period is a prior and unreasonable restraint upon the freedom of
expression which is not reasonably necessary to achieve the purpose of clean, honest, orderly and peaceful elections. Thus,
Section 5.4 of R.A. No. 9006 is unconstitutional.

Section 5. Favorable Recommendation for Pardon, Amnesty, Parole or Suspension of Sentence

Section 6. Free and Open Party System

Liberal Party v. COMELEC, GR No. 191771, May 6, 2010
MAIN POINT:
Coalitions have to register in order to enjoy the benefits of a registered political party because the coalition is distinct in
personality from that of the coalescing parties.
The registration of a coalition and the accreditation of a dominant minority party are two separate matters that are
substantively distinct from each otherregistration is the act that bestows juridical personality for purposes of our election
laws while accreditation relates to the privileged participation that our election laws grant to qualified registered parties.

Section 7. No Block-Voting

Section 8. Prohibition on Political Parties

Section 9. Election Period

Section 10. No Harassment and Discrimination

Section 11. Funds

D. Commission of Audit
Section 1. Qualifications; Term
Mison v. COA, 187 SCRA 445
FACTS:

Chan Chiu On and Cheung I then filed a claim with the Commission of Audit for the payment of the value of the vessel of
Japanese registry which sank while in the custody of the Bureau of Customs.

Acting thereon by authority of the Acting Chairman, Espiritu, Manager, Technical Service Office of the COA, denied the
claim.
ISSUE:
Whether the decision of Espiritu is valid
RULING:
NO. It was void ab initio. As manager of the COA Technical Service Office, Mr. Espiritu obviously had no power whatever
to render and promulgate a decision of or for the Commission. Indeed, even the Chairman, alone, had not that power. As
clearly set out in the Constitution then in force, the power was lodged in the Commission on Audit, composed of a
Chairman and two Commissioners. It was the Commission, as a collegial body, which then as now, had the jurisdiction to
decide any case brought before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for resolution, subject to review by the
Supreme Court on certiorari.
The adoption or ratification of the Espiritu decision by the Acting COA Chairman was inconsequential. Ratification cannot
validate an act void ab initio because done absolutely without authority.

Section 2. General Function; Powers

Philippine Operations, Inc. v. Auditor General, 94 PHIL 868
MAIN POINT:
Auditor generals power over private moneyed claims refers to liquidated claims. Liquidated damages are those accounts
which may be adjusted simply by an arithmetic process.
Claims for unliquidated damages are not committed by law to the control and decision of treasury accounting officers.

Euro-Med Laboratories, Phil, Inc. v. Province of Batangas, 495 SCRA 601

MAIN POINT:
Petitioner was seeking the enforcement of a claim for a certain amount of money against a local government unit.
The enforcement of a claim against a local government unit is within the domain of the Commission on Audit
Liquidated claims or readily determinable vouchers and such other papers within the reach of accounting officers are within
the COAs jurisdiction
The authority and powers of the Commission on Audit shall extend to and comprehend all matters relating to the
examination, audit, and settlement of all debts and claims of any sort due from or owing to the Government or any of its
subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities.

Ramos v. Aquino, 39 SCRA 236

MAIN POINT:
If the COA has already passed on account in audit, the fiscal may still look into it for the purpose of determining possible
criminal liability, because thee COAs interest is merely administrative and not criminal.
Effect of final approval by Auditor-General of certain accounts, on criminal prosecution arising out of said accounts :
o Not valid ground to prohibit the Provincial Fiscal from conducting an investigation for the purpose of determining
the criminal liability for malversation of public funds thru falsification of public documents of petitioners, arising
from disbursements of public funds already audited and approved by the Auditor-General.

Blue Bar Coconut Philippines v. Tantuico, 163 SCRA 716

MAIN POINT:
Private entities which handle government funds or subsidies in trust may be examined or audited in their handling of said
funds by the government auditors.

NHA v. COA, 226 SCRA 55

MAIN POINT:
The continued extension of the services of Engr. Murdoch as a foreign consultant constitutes at the very least an unnecessary
expense.
Court recognized the authority of COA to disallow irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant or unconscionable
expenditures

Dingcong v. Guingona, 162 SCRA 782 (1988)

FACTS:
 Payments for the pakyao labor contract (for renovation of Bureau of Treasury) were disallowed by COA on the ground that
the cost of that contract was excessive and, therefore, disadvantageous to the government
ISSUE:
Does the COA have the authority to reduce the amount that was passed in audit on the ground that the original amount was
excessive and disadvantageous to the government
RULING:
YES. The authority of COA extends to the accounts of all persons respecting funds or properties received or held by them in
an accountable capacity.
However, recourse to a pakyao labor contract is not necessarily disadvantageous.
In this case, it was entered into only after public bidding pursuant to existing regulations through canvass among three
qualified bidders. Since Layson submitted the lowest price, each contract was awarded to him. The Court also notes that
Layson was subsequently hired as a casual in the Bureau of Treasury Office in order to do away with the hiring of a carpenter
and electrician, thereby exhibiting an awareness on petitioners part of government interests and a positive effort to avail of
cost-cutting options.

Danville Maritime v. COA, 175 SCRA 701 (1989)

ISSUE:
Where regulations require public bidding for the sale of government property, does the COA have the authority to interpret
the meaning of public bidding and what constitutes its failure?
RULING:
YES, and for as long that there is no clear evidence of abuse and discretion, the decision of COA will not be disturbed.
No less than the Constitution has ordained that the COA shall have exclusive authority to define the scope of its audit and
examination, establish the techniques and methods required therefore, and promulgate accounting and auditing rules and
regulations, including those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or
unconscionable expenditures, or use of government funds and properties.

Mamaril v. Domingo, 227 SCRA 206 (1993)

MAIN POINT:
The COA has authority not just over accountable officers but also over other officers who perform functions related to
accounting such as verification of evaluations and computation of fees collectible, and the adoption of internal rules of
control.
An Evaluator/Computer, for instance, is an indispensable part of the process of assessment and collection and comes within
the scope of the Commissions jurisdiction

Sambeli v. Province of Isabela, GR No. 92279, June 18, 1992

MAIN POINT:
COA may stop payment of price stipulated in government contracts. In the exercise of the regulatory power vested upon it by the
Constitution, the Commission on Audit adheres to the policy that government funds and property should be fully protected and
conserved and that irregular, unnecessary, excessive or extravagant expenditures or uses of such funds and property should be
prevented.

Osmena v. COA, GR No. 98355, March 2, 1994

FACTS:
The controversy had its origin in the stabbing by an unknown assailant of Reynaldo de la Cerna, the son of the de la Cerna
Spouses.
He was rushed to the Cebu City Medical Center, but unfortunately died that night. His parents claimed that Reynaldo would
not have died were it not for the ineptitude, gross negligence, irresponsibility, stupidity and incompetence of the medical
staff of the Medical Center.
The sanggunian authorized the City Budget Officer to include in Supplemental Budget of the City . . .the amount of
P30,000.00 for financial assistance to the parents of the late Reynaldo de la Cerna
About 11 months later, however respondent COA disallowed the financial assistance thus granted to the spouses de la
Cerna, saying that no real or substantial relation to the public health, morals, or general welfare of the community can be
perceived from the act of giving such financial assistance.
ISSUE:
Whether COA commited grave abuse of discretion in disallowing the payment of P30,000.00 for the compromise agreement
between the parties herein involved.
RULING:
NO. This judicial compromise is conclusive and binding on all the parties, including the City of Cebu. It is enforceable by
execution, as above stressed. There was no reason whatever to object to it, much less disallow any disbursement therein
stipulated.
 The compromise in question was pronounced to be in conformity with law, morals and public policy and enjoined the parties
to comply strictly with the terms and conditions thereof.
Respondent COA has the power, authority, and duty to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to revenue and
receipts of, and expenditures, and 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. In the exercise of its broad powers, particularly its auditing functions, the COA is guided by certain principles and
state policies to assure that government funds shall be managed, expended, utilized in accordance with law and regulations,
and safeguarded against loss or wastage x x x with a view to ensuring efficiency, economy and effectiveness in the operations
of government.

Bustamante v. COA, GR No. 103309, Nov. 27, 1992

MAIN POINT:
Powers of Directors of NPC is subordinate to COAs constitutional mandate to examine, audit and settle accounts pertaining
to this particular expenditure or use of funds and property, owned or held in trust by this government-owned and controlled
corporation, the NPC

Caltex v. COA, 208 SCRA 726 (1992)

MAIN POINT:
The audit power of the Auditor General under the 1935 Constitution and the Commission on Audit under the 1973
Constitution authorized them to disallow illegal expenditures of funds or uses of funds and property
Our present Constitution retains that same power and authority, further strengthened by the definition of the COAs general
jurisdiction in Section 26 of the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines and Administrative Code of 1987. Pursuant to
its power to promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations for the prevention of irregular, unnecessary, excessive
or extravagant expenditures or uses of funds, the COA promulgated on 29 March 1977 COA Circular No. 77-55. Since the
COA is responsible for the enforcement of the rules and regulations, it goes without saying that failure to comply with them
is a ground for disapproving the payment of the proposed expenditure.

Polloso v. Gangan, 335 SCRA 750 (2000)

FACTS:
The NPC hired the services of a lawyer without complying with the requirement which prior written approval of the Solicitor
General should be observed.
When the COA disallowed payment to the lawyer, it was argued that the circular requiring the approval of the Solicitor
General was unconstitutional because it restricted the practice of law

RULING:
The circular was merely a safeguard to prevent irregular, unnecessary, excessive, and extravagant or unconscionable expenditures.

DBP v. COA, 231 SCRA 202

MAIN POINT:
Even in cases where pre-audit is allowed and pre-audit has been performed, the Commission is not estopped from making a
post-audit.
Public corporations under the jurisdiction of COA may employ private auditors. However, COAs findings and conclusions
necessarily prevail over those of private auditors.

Strategic Alliance v. Radstock Securities, GR No. 178158, December 4, 2009

MAIN POINT:
GOCCs are not autonomous bodies independent of government. They are subject to audit by the COA and subject to control
by the President

Uy, et al v. COA, GR No. 130685, March 21, 2000

MAIN POINT:
COA, in the exercise of its auditing function, cannot disallow the payment of backwages to employees illegally dismissed
and say that the responsibility belongs to the official who dismissed them in bad faith.
Payment of backwages is not an irregular, unnecessary, excessive, or extravagant expense.

Davao City Water District v. CSC and COA, GR No. 95237, September 13, 1991
MAIN POINT:
Local water districts incorporated under PD 198 are GOCCs with original charter and therefore under the jurisdiction of
COA.

Parreno v. COA, GR No. 162224, June 7, 2007

MAIN POINT:
COA can decide money claims based on law. But if a money claim is denied by a law, COA has no authority to pass
judgment on the constitutionality of the law.

Boy Scouts of the Philippines v. COA, 651 SCRA 146

MAIN POINT:
The Boy Scouts of the Philippines (BSP) is a public corporation and its funds are subject to the COAs audit jurisdiction.
Boy Scouts of the Philippines (BSP) as presently constituted under Republic Act No. 7278, falls under the second
classification of juridical persons under Article 44 of the Civil Code: Other corporations, institutions and entities for public
interest or purpose created by law

Espinas v. COA, GR No. 198271, 720 SCRA 302, April 1, 2014

MAIN POINT:
As an essential complement, the Commission on Audit (CoA) has been vested with the exclusive authority to 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 an independent constitutional body conferred with such power, it reasonably follows that the Commission on Audits
(CoAs) interpretation of its own auditing rules and regulations, as enunciated in its decisions, should be accorded great
weight and respect.
Since the Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses (EME) of Government-Owned and Controlled Corporations (GOCCs),
Government Financial Institutions (GFIs) and their subsidiaries, are, pursuant to law, allocated by their own internal
governing boards, as opposed to the EME of National Government Agencies (NGAs) which are appropriated in the annual
General Appropriations Act (GAA) duly enacted by Congress, there is a perceivable rational impetus for the Commission on
Audit (CoA) to impose nuanced control measures to check if the EME disbursements of GOCCs, GFIs and their subsidiaries
constitute irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable government expenditures

Maritime Industry Authority v. COA GR No. 185812, January 13, 2015

MAIN POINT:
The aggrieved party can assail the decision of the Commission on Audit (COA) through a petition for certiorari under Rule
64 before the Supreme Court (SC).

The Law Firm of Laguesma Magsalin Consulta and Gastardo v. COA GR No. 185544, 2015
FACTS:
Commission on Audit disallowed the payment of retainer fees to the law firm of Laguesma Magsalin Consulta and Gastardo
for legal services rendered to Clark Development Corporation
MAIN POINT:
The GOCC may hire the services of a private counsel in exceptional cases with the written conformity and acquiescence of
the Government Corporate Counsel, and with the concurrence of the Commission on Audit

Section 3. COA Jurisdiction

Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) v. COA, G.R. No. 209219, 2014

MAIN POINT:
It is the general policy of the Court to sustain the decisions of administrative authorities, especially one which is constitutionally-
created not only on the basis of the doctrine of separation of powers but also for their presumed expertise in the laws they are entrusted
to enforce. Findings of administrative agencies are accorded not only respect but also finality when the decision and order are not
tainted with unfairness or arbitrariness that would amount to grave abuse of discretion. It is only when the COA has acted without or
in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
FACTS:
Congress approved Republic Act (RA) No. 72273 creating the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA).
Section 9 of RA No. 7227 states that the BCDA Board of Directors (Board) shall exercise the powers and functions of the
BCDA...(including)...adoption of a compensation and benefit scheme at least equivalent to that of the Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas (BSP). Accordingly, the Board...adopted a compensation and benefit scheme for its officials and employees.
The Board adopted a new compensation scheme which included a year-end benefit P30,000 to all BCDA officials and
employees
COA RULING:
Affirmed disallowance of YEB. Presumption of good faith does not apply because DBM issued clarificatory memo and
Board still proceeded to grant YEB after.

Section 4. Annual Report to the President and to Congress