Department of Foreign Affairs vs. Commission on Audit
**Facts:**
1. **Initial Disallowances:**
– **September 24 – October 27, 2008:** COA Resident Auditor in DFA issued 19 Notices of Disallowances (NDs) totaling P33,038,107.61 for terminal leave benefits.
– **Reasons for Disallowances:** Overpayment of leave benefits beyond 360 days, and incorrect deduction methods violating the Foreign Service Act.
– **November 27, 2008:** 20 NDs issued to Philippine Embassy in London personnel for P7,221,324.94 due to incorrect foreign exchange conversions violating Executive Order No. 461.
2. **Appeals and Procedural Posture:**
– **DFA Appeals:** DFA personnel appealed the NDs to COA.
– **February 12, 2009:** Resident Auditor returned the appeals due to non-payment of filing fees imposed by COA Resolution No. 2008-005.
– **Motion to Suspend Implementation:** DFA filed a motion before COA to suspend the Resolution, arguing unconstitutional inclusion of filing fees and vagueness.
3. **COA Decisions:**
– **September 22, 2009 – Decision No. 2009-089:** COA denied DFA’s motion for suspension and asserted constitutionality and clarity of the Resolution.
– **October 21, 2010 – Decision No. 2010-090:** COA denied DFA’s motion for reconsideration and reiterated the jurisdictional nature of filing fees, denying any due process violation.
4. **Petition to Supreme Court:** DFA filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65, challenging the COA Resolutions and Decisions as unconstitutional.
**Issues:**
1. **Constitutional Validity:** Whether the COA Resolution No. 2008-005, imposing filing fees, violated Article IX-A, Section 6 of the Constitution.
2. **Due Process Violation:** Whether the requirement to pay filing fees before an appeal can be heard undermines due process rights.
3. **Procedural Clarification:** Whether the computation and application of filing fees under the Resolution were ambiguous.
**Court’s Decision:**
1. **On Constitutional Validity:**
– **Collegial Body Decision:** The Supreme Court held that an en banc decision does not necessitate the full membership but rather acts as a collegial decision, sanctioning the Resolution’s promulgation by the two members present.
– **Rule-Making Authority:** COA’s power to impose filing fees was confirmed as essential for quasi-judicial operations, aligning with practices in judicial bodies.
2. **On Due Process Violation:**
– **No Denial of Due Process:** The Court ruled that procedural requirements like filing fees are acceptable limitations. Due process was maintained as DFA had the opportunity to respond to AOMs before NDs.
– **Appeals not a Constitutional Right:** The Court reiterated that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege and not an inherent right, subjecting it to procedural restrictions and fees.
3. **On Procedural Clarification:**
– **Filing Fees Computation Clarity:** The Court found the Resolution’s provisions on fee computation clear, stipulating one filing fee per appeal, assessed on the aggregate amount of disallowed transactions.
– **Agency Payment:** An agency may pay filing fees in lump sum on behalf of employees, subject to the P10,000 cap, thus simplifying the payment process.
**Doctrine:**
– **Collegial Body Decision:** An en banc decision refers to a collective decision of the body, not necessarily full membership.
– **Filing Fees as Procedural Limitation:** The requirement to pay filing fees as a condition for appeal does not violate due process rights and is compatible with judicial practices.
– **Statutory Privilege of Appeal:** The right to appeal is not an inherent constitutional right but a privilege granted by statute, thus subject to reasonable procedural requirements.
**Class Notes:**
1. **Constitutional Commissions:** Each commission en banc has rule-making powers but must act as a collegial body.
2. **Due Process in Administrative Proceedings:** Requires an opportunity to be heard; procedural fees do not constitute a violation.
3. **Filing Fees:** An allowable and often necessary procedural step in both judicial and quasi-judicial forums.
– **Legal Statutes Cited:**
– 1987 Constitution, Article IX-A, Section 6
– Rules of Court provisions on filing fees
**Historical Background:**
– **System of Rotating Commission Members:** Designed to ensure continuity and reduce periods of single-member commissions.
– **COA’s Regulatory Evolution:** Reflects the need to cover adjudication costs and streamline appeals, responding to operational deficits under previous rules.
– **Precedent Cases:** Reinforces the interpretation of “en banc” and the procedural acceptance of filing fees, drawing analogies from both local and international judicial practices.
Leave a Reply