LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY, AND ALEX L. DAVID, PETITIONERS, VS. THE COMISSION ON ELECTIONS, HON. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR. IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HON. RAFAEL M. ALUNA…

On 18 April 1994, petitioner Liga Ng Mga Barangay, an
organization of barangays, represented by petitioner Alex L. David, its
president and secretary general as well as a taxpayer, filed this petition for
prohibition, with prayer for a temporary restraining order (G.R. No.
114809). Petitioners question what they
perceive as “the threatened illegal transfer, disbursement and use of public
funds in a manner contrary to the Constitution and the law”^[1]
relative to the conduct of the forthcoming barangay elections (scheduled for 9
May 1994).

On 22 April 1994, another petition raising the same issues as in
the first petition was filed, (docketed as G.R. No. 114896). The said petition has been consolidated with
the first petition and both petitions are here resolved jointly. Petitioners claim that
in the General Apropriation Act of 1994, only One Hundred Thirty Seven Million
Eight Hundred Seventy Eight Thousand Pesos (P137,878,000.00) were appropriated
by Congress for the holding of the 1994 barangay elections.^[2] By early 1994, according to
petitioners, Congress itself had made an assessment that such appropriated sum
would be insufficient to defray the cost of holding the said elections.

In order to augment the said appropriated amount, petitioners
allege that the respondents have threatened and are about to effect a transfer
or re-allocation of the following amounts to be sourced from the executive and
legislative branches of Government to respondent Commission on Elections
(COMELEC);

(a)  One Hundred Eighty Million Pesos
(P180,000.000) from the appropriation of the Department of Interior and Local
Government (DILG).

(b)  One Hundred Million Pesos (P100,000,000) from
the Countryside Development Fund; Seventy Million Pesos (P70,000,000) from the
Senate and Thirty Million Pesos (P30,000,000) from the House of
Representatives; and

(c)  Forty Three Million Pesos (P43,000.000) from
the Internal Revenue Allotments (IRA) of Provinces, Cities and Municipalities.

The foregoing figures were culled by petitioners from a news item
entitled “Barangay Poll Funds Found” appearing in the 18 March 1994 issue of
the Manila Bulletin. Based on the said
news report, petitioners claim that respondents will effect the transfer of
said public funds from the executive and legislative branches of the Government
to respondent COMELEC, which in turn would use the said funds for the purpose
of holding the barangay elections scheduled on 9 May 1994.

Deliberating on the seriousness of the afore-mentioned
allegations in the Petition, and because of the proximity of the 9 May barangay
elections, the Court on 21 April 1994 resolved to require respondents to
comment on the Petition within a non-extendible period of five (5) days.

On 26 April 1994, respondents, through the Solicitor General,
filed their comment.

In their comment, respondents claim that petitioners acted solely
on the basis of reports made in a newspaper, not bothering to confirm the
veracity of the said reports either from the COMELEC, the DILG, and/or any of
the respondents, particularly on whether respondents are indeed officially
initiating the alleged transfer of funds for the barangay elections.

The truth of the matter, according to respondents, is that the
said reports were mere unofficial proposals or suggestions made in the process
of searching for funds for the said elections but which were later discarded by
the proponents themselves.

Respondents aver that the COMELEC never had planned to secure any
funding from the DILG, CDFs or IRAs, as alleged by petitioners, or from any
other source for that matter which would be contrary to the Constitution and
the election laws.

Respondent COMELEC particularly
alleges that it intends to fund the forthcoming barangay elections from the
P137,878,000 appropriated by Congress for the said elections and from its (COMELEC’s) own savings resulting from
unused funds originally intended for the conduct and supervision of elections
and other political exercises such as funds for the sectoral elections which
did not take place and possibly from a portion of its (COMELEC’s) modernization program for which the amount of more
than five hundred million pesos (P500,000,000) had been appropriated by
Congress.

The Solicitor General defends the above COMELEC scheme as allowed
by Sec. 25(5), Article VI of the Constitution and Sections 17 and 19 of the
General Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1994, viz:

“(5). No law shall
be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President,
the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional
Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general
appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of
their respective appropriations.”

x x x x x x          x x x

Sec. 17. Use of
Savings. The President of the
Philippines, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Heads of
Constitutional Commissions under Article IX of the Constitution, the
Ombudsman and the Commission on Human Rights are hereby authorized to
augment any item in this Act for their respective offices from savings in other
items of their respective appropriations.

x x x     x x x           x x x

Sec. 19. Meaning of Savings
and Augmentation. Savings refer to
portions of balances of any programmed appropriation free of any obligation or
encumbrance still available after the satisfactory completion or unavoidable discontinuance
or abandonment of the work, activity or purpose for which the appropriation is
authorized, or arising from unpaid compensation and related costs pertaining to
vacant positions and leaves of absence without pay.

Augmentation implies the existence in this Act of an item, project,
activity or purpose with an appropriation which upon implementation or
subsequent evaluation of needed resources is determined to be deficient. In no case, therefore, shall non-existent
item, project, activity, purpose or object of expenditure be funded by
augmentation from savings or by the use of appropriations authorized otherwise
in this Act.” (emphasis supplied)

Moreover, respondents maintain that funds of local government
units may also be used to help defray the cost of the forthcoming barangay
elections. For authority, they cite
Opinion No. 51, s. 1994 of the Honorable, the Secretary of Justice, dated 19
April 1994, issued upon request from the COMELEC, wherein the former takes the
view that under Section 50 of the Omnibus Election Code, local government units
are required to appropriate funds for barangay elections. The Opinion explained that:

“We find legal basis for the issuance by COMELEC of an appropriate
directive requiring the local government units to appropriate funds to defray
expenses for the barangay elections.

Article I, General Provisions, of the Omnibus Election Code (B.P.
Blg. 881, as amended) pertinently
states as follows:

‘Sec. 10. Election
expenses. – Except in barangay elections, such expenses as may be necessary and reasonable in
connection with the elections, referenda, plebiscites and other similar
exercises shall be paid by the Commission. The Commission may direct that in the provinces, cities or municipalities,
the election expenses chargeable to the Commission be advanced by the province,
city or municipality concerned subject to reimbursement by the Commission upon
presentation of the proper bill.’ (Underscoring supplied)

Funds needed by the Commission to defray the expenses for the holding
of regular and special elections, referenda and plebiscites shall be provided
in the regular appropriation of the Commission which, upon request, shall
immediately be released to the Commission. In case of deficiency, the amount so provided shall be augmented from
the special activities funds in the general appropriation act and from those
specifically appropriated for the purpose in special laws. (Emphasis supplied)

Article IV of the same Code dealing with ‘Election of Barangay
Officials’ provides as follows:

‘SEC. 50. Funding. – Local
governments shall appropriate such funds to defray such necessary and
reasonable expenses of the members of the board of election tellers, board of
canvassers and the printing of election forms and procurement of other election
paraphernalia, and the installation of polling booths.’

Undoubtedly, under the foregoing provisions, while the Comelec
answers for all expenditures relative to political exercises of the province,
city and municipality, local governments are mandated to share in the expenses
of the election for barangay officials through appropriation of funds for the
purpose. The Comelec may direct
compliance by the local governments with the aforesaid provision of Section 50,
Article IV of the Omnibus Election Code pursuant to its constitutional
authority to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the
conduct of elections (Sec. 2 [1], Art. IX-C, 1987 Constitution), in the same
manner that the Comelec may also issue an appropriate directive for the
province, city or municipality to advance the election expenses that are
chargeable to it. Since the President
exercises general supervision over all local governments (Sec. 4, Art. X, ibid.),
the Comelec may course its directive to local governments through the Office of
the President and to be implemented by the DILG.”

Pursuant to said opinion of the Secretary of Justice, the COMELEC
issued Comelec Resolution No. 2713, dated 21 April 1994, promulgating the
guidelines for the sharing by local government units in the expenses of the
barangay elections.

The validity of the aforesaid COMELEC resolution is not at issue
in the petitions before us. What is in issue here is the existence or
lack of factual basis on whether or not the impleaded public respondents are
attempting, or intending to
effect the transfer of funds which would be in direct contravention of Sec.
25(5), Art. VI, of the Constitution.

Undoubtedly, the threat to pursue the scheme, if ever there was
one, existed only in newspaper reports which could have misled the general
public, including the petitioners, into believing that the same emanated from
unimpeccable sources.

The Court acknowledges that petitioners have displayed vigilance
and acted with the best of intentions when they filed the present
petitions. Yet, it would have been more
prudent for them to have first obtained an official statement or at least
confirmation from respondents as to
the veracity of the reports contained in the said news item – which could
itself have been quoted out of context by the reporter concerned or simply
abbreviated to meet the day’s deadline.

WHEREFORE, finding the explanation of
respondents to be well taken, the Court resolved to DISMISS the petitions for
lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr.,
Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug, and
Kapunan, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Petition, p. 9

^[2]
General Appropriation Act. FY 1994, p. 1167