THE Supreme Court (SC) has upheld a 2023 ruling of the Commission on Audit (COA) nullifying the Early and Voluntary Separation Incentive Program (EVSIP) of the Puerto Princesa government for being contrary to the provisions of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) law.
In an en banc ruling, the High Court denied the motion for reconsideration filed by Puerto Princesa Mayor Lucilo Bayron and several other city officials questioning the COA ruling.
The SC said that COA’s findings relative to its decision dated January 16, 2020 have already been forwarded to the Office of the Ombudsman for the latter’s investigation and case buildup.
“The Court reiterates its deferral to the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman in preliminary investigations relative to the alleged misconduct of government officials—the results of which Respondent may use in its determination of whether or not to pursue Petitioners and others for the disbursed amount under PPCG’s EVSIP, i.e., P89,672,400.74,” the SC said.
The SC stressed that petitioners cannot rely on the principle of local autonomy to validate the disbursements which were based on a provision in the local ordinance that patently contravenes the prescribed limitations in the Local Government Code and the General Appropriation Acts.
“The concept of local autonomy does not preclude intervention by the national government in the form of supervision to ensure that the local programs, fiscal and otherwise, are consistent with the national goals. Fiscal decentralization—as an aspect of local autonomy—”does not signify the absolute freedom of the LGUs to create their own sources of revenue and to spend their revenues unrestrictedly or upon their individual whims and caprices,” the SC explained.
“Indeed, local autonomy was never intended to sever the partnership and interdependence between the central administration and LGUs.Thus, notwithstanding autonomy, local appropriations and expenditures are still under the supervision of the President, through the DBM, as well as the authority of the COA under its plenary auditing power, to ensure compliance with laws and regulations. Concomitant to the COA’s auditing power is the authority to disallow disbursements of government funds which contravenes established laws as in this case,” the SC ruled.
However, in the same decision, the en banc absolved two other city officials in the case – acting city budget officer Roberto Herrera and Mylene Atienza, administrative officer II and member of the screening and evaluation committee, of any monetary liability relative to the refunding of amounts covered by the Notice of Disallowance issued by audit body.
The case stemmed from the establishment of the EVSIP of the Puerto Princesa city government in 2010 through Ordinance No. 438 and Resolution No. 850-2010 of the Sangguniang Panlungsod.
State auditors have issued a series of notices of disallowance in 2013 on the payment of benefits under the EVSIP in the total amount of PHP 89,672,400.74.
Bayron and the other city officials elevated the case to the Court of Appeals to appeal the administrative process of the COA, which ended with the denial of their appeal.
The appellate court also directed that the case records must be forwarded to the office of the Ombudsman for proper investigation and case buildup.
Without filing a motion for reconsideration relative to the COA’s en banc ruling, Bayron went straight to the SC for relief by filing a petition for certiorari.
The SC declared that City Ordnance No. 438 and Resolution No. 850-210 is “ultra vires and contrary to the explicit proscription of Commonwealth Act No. 186 otherwise known as the Government Service and Insurance System law, due to the EVSIP’s early retirement plan for PPCG’s officials and employees.”
The High Court deferred any discussion as to Bayron’s assertion of good faith.
“This is due to the forwarding of the case records by the COA to the office of the Ombudsman for appropriate action, proper investigation, and case build up. This is in keeping with the Court’s respect towards the constitutionally and statutorily defined jurisdiction of the office of the Ombudsman,” the SC decision added.
