This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2016-01-12 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| In a recent case, Delos Santos v. COA,[15] wherein the Court upheld the COA's disallowance of irregularly disbursed Priority Development Assistance Fund, the Court explained that: At the outset, it must be emphasized that the CoA is endowed with enough latitude to determine, prevent, and disallow irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant or unconscionable expenditures of government funds. It is tasked to be vigilant and conscientious in safeguarding the proper use of the government's, and ultimately the people's, property. 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. | |||||
|
2015-06-16 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Decisions and resolutions of the respondent COA may be reviewed and nullified only on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[39] Grave abuse of discretion exists when there is an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act in contemplation of law as when the judgment rendered is not based on law and evidence but on caprice, whim, and despotism.[40] | |||||
|
2014-04-01 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| As an independent constitutional body conferred with such power, it reasonably follows that the CoA's interpretation of its own auditing rules and regulations, as enunciated in its decisions, should be accorded great weight and respect. In the recent case of Delos Santos v. CoA,[42] the Court explained the general policy of the Court towards CoA decisions reviewed under certiorari[43] parameters:[44] | |||||
|
2013-11-19 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| The applicability of the second exception is also apparent from the nature of the interests involved the constitutionality of the very system within which significant amounts of public funds have been and continue to be utilized and expended undoubtedly presents a situation of exceptional character as well as a matter of paramount public interest. The present petitions, in fact, have been lodged at a time when the system's flaws have never before been magnified. To the Court's mind, the coalescence of the CoA Report, the accounts of numerous whistle-blowers, and the government's own recognition that reforms are needed "to address the reported abuses of the PDAF"[130] demonstrates a prima facie pattern of abuse which only underscores the importance of the matter. It is also by this finding that the Court finds petitioners' claims as not merely theorized, speculative or hypothetical. Of note is the weight accorded by the Court to the findings made by the CoA which is the constitutionally-mandated audit arm of the government. In Delos Santos v. CoA,[131] a recent case wherein the Court upheld the CoA's disallowance of irregularly disbursed PDAF funds, it was emphasized that: [T]he CoA is endowed with enough latitude to determine, prevent, and disallow irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant or unconscionable expenditures of government funds. It is tasked to be vigilant and conscientious in safeguarding the proper use of the government's, and ultimately the people's, property. 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. | |||||
|
2013-11-19 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Significantly, it was during this era that provisions which allowed formal participation of non-governmental organizations (NGO) in the implementation of government projects were introduced. In the Supplemental Budget for 2006, with respect to the appropriation for school buildings, NGOs were, by law, encouraged to participate. For such purpose, the law stated that "the amount of at least P250 Million of the P500 Million allotted for the construction and completion of school buildings shall be made available to NGOs including the Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Inc. for its "Operation Barrio School" program[,] with capability and proven track records in the construction of public school buildings x x x."[62] The same allocation was made available to NGOs in the 2007 and 2009 GAAs under the DepEd Budget.[63] Also, it was in 2007 that the Government Procurement Policy Board[64] (GPPB) issued Resolution No. 12-2007 dated June 29, 2007 (GPPB Resolution 12-2007), amending the implementing rules and regulations[65] of RA 9184,[66] the Government Procurement Reform Act, to include, as a form of negotiated procurement,[67] the procedure whereby the Procuring Entity[68] (the implementing agency) may enter into a memorandum of agreement with an NGO, provided that "an appropriation law or ordinance earmarks an amount to be specifically contracted out to NGOs."[69] | |||||