Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 99 views

    BOY SCOUTS OF THE PHILIPPINES v. Commission On Audit

    Uploaded by

    April Joy Omboy
    The COA issued a resolution stating that the Boy Scouts of the Philippines (BSP) falls under its audit jurisdiction. The BSP disputed this, claiming it was not subject to COA audits. The Supreme Court ruled that the BSP is considered a government instrumentality under the 1987 Administrative Code and is thus subject to COA's constitutional mandate to audit all government agencies. As a public corporation and instrumentality of the government, the BSP receives public funds and therefore falls under the COA's broad audit powers according to the Constitution. The petition seeking to prohibit COA audits of the BSP was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    BOY SCOUTS OF THE PHILIPPINES v. Commission On Audit

    Uploaded by

    April Joy Omboy
    99 views2 pages
    The COA issued a resolution stating that the Boy Scouts of the Philippines (BSP) falls under its audit jurisdiction. The BSP disputed this, claiming it was not subject to COA audits. The Supreme Court ruled that the BSP is considered a government instrumentality under the 1987 Administrative Code and is thus subject to COA's constitutional mandate to audit all government agencies. As a public corporation and instrumentality of the government, the BSP receives public funds and therefore falls under the COA's broad audit powers according to the Constitution. The petition seeking to prohibit COA audits of the BSP was dismissed.

    Original Title

    BOY SCOUTS OF THE PHILIPPINES v. Commission on Audit

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The COA issued a resolution stating that the Boy Scouts of the Philippines (BSP) falls under its audit jurisdiction. The BSP disputed this, claiming it was not subject to COA audits. The Supreme Court ruled that the BSP is considered a government instrumentality under the 1987 Administrative Code and is thus subject to COA's constitutional mandate to audit all government agencies. As a public corporation and instrumentality of the government, the BSP receives public funds and therefore falls under the COA's broad audit powers according to the Constitution. The petition seeking to prohibit COA audits of the BSP was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    99 views2 pages

    BOY SCOUTS OF THE PHILIPPINES v. Commission On Audit

    Uploaded by

    April Joy Omboy
    The COA issued a resolution stating that the Boy Scouts of the Philippines (BSP) falls under its audit jurisdiction. The BSP disputed this, claiming it was not subject to COA audits. The Supreme Court ruled that the BSP is considered a government instrumentality under the 1987 Administrative Code and is thus subject to COA's constitutional mandate to audit all government agencies. As a public corporation and instrumentality of the government, the BSP receives public funds and therefore falls under the COA's broad audit powers according to the Constitution. The petition seeking to prohibit COA audits of the BSP was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    BOY SCOUTS OF THE PHILIPPINES, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT G.R. No.

    177131, June 7, 2011, EN BANC


    (Leonardo-De Castro, J.)

    Facts:

    COA issued Resolution No. 99-0115 on August 19, 1999 with the subject "Defining the Commissions
    policy with respect to the audit of the Boy Scouts of the Philippines." In its whereas clauses, the COA
    Resolution stated that the BSP was created as a public corporation under CA No. 111, as amended by PD
    No. 460 and Republic Act No. 7278; that in Boy Scouts of the Philippines v. NLRC, the Supreme Court
    ruled that the BSP, as constituted under its charter, was a "government-controlled corporation within
    the meaning of Article IX(B)(2)(1) of the Constitution"; and that "the BSP is appropriately regarded as a
    government instrumentality under the 1987 Administrative Code." The COA Resolution also cited its
    constitutional mandate under Section 2(1), Article IX (D). COA General Counsel, Director Sunico wrote
    BSP that latter have to comply with COA Resolution No. 99-011, among which is to conduct an annual
    financial audit therein. Upon the BSPs request, the audit was deferred for thirty (30) days. The BSP then
    filed a Petition for Review with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order
    before the COA. This was denied by the COA in its questioned Decision, which held that the BSP is under
    its audit jurisdiction. The BSP moved for reconsideration but this was likewise denied under its
    questioned Resolution. This led to the filing by the BSP of this petition for prohibition with preliminary
    injunction and temporary restraining order against the COA.

    ISSUE: Whether the BSP falls under the COAs audit jurisdiction.

    RULING: The BSP is under the COAs audit jurisdiction. POLITICAL LAW personality of BSP We believe that
    the BSP is appropriately regarded as "a government instrumentality" under the 1987 Administrative
    Code. It thus appears that the BSP may be regarded as both a "government controlled corporation with
    an original charter" and as an "instrumentality" of the Government within the meaning of Article IX (B)
    (2) (1) of the Constitution. The existence of public or government corporate or juridical entities or
    chartered institutions by legislative fiat distinct from private corporations and government owned or
    controlled corporation is best exemplified by the 1987 Administrative Code cited above, which we quote
    in part: Sec. 2. General Terms Defined. Unless the specific words of the text, or the context as a whole,
    or a particular statute, shall require a different meaning: 125 (10) "Instrumentality" refers to any agency
    of the National Government, not integrated within the department framework, vested with special
    functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate powers, administering special
    funds, and enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a charter. This term includes regulatory
    agencies, chartered institutions and government-owned or controlled corporations. (12) "Chartered
    institution" refers to any agency organized or operating under a special charter, and vested by law with
    functions relating to specific constitutional policies or objectives. This term includes the state
    universities and colleges and the monetary authority of the State. (13) "Government-owned or
    controlled corporation" refers to any agency organized as a stock or non-stock corporation, vested with
    functions relating to public needs whether governmental or proprietary in nature, and owned by the
    Government directly or through its instrumentalities either wholly, or, where applicable as in the case of
    stock corporations, to the extent of at least fifty-one (51) per cent of its capital stock: Provided, That
    government-owned or controlled corporations may be further categorized by the Department of the
    Budget, the Civil Service Commission, and the Commission on Audit for purposes of the exercise and
    discharge of their respective powers, functions and responsibilities with respect to such corporations.
    Assuming for the sake of argument that the BSP ceases to be owned or controlled by the government
    because of reduction of the number of representatives of the government in the BSP Board, it does not
    follow that it also ceases to be a government instrumentality as it still retains all the characteristics of
    the latter as an attached agency of the DECS under the Administrative Code. Vesting corporate powers
    to an attached agency or instrumentality of the government is not constitutionally prohibited and is
    allowed by the above-mentioned provisions of the Civil Code and the 1987 Administrative Code.
    Historically, therefore, the BSP had been subjected to government audit in so far as public funds had
    been infused thereto. However, this practice should not preclude the exercise of the audit jurisdiction of
    COA, clearly set forth under the Constitution, which pertinently provides: Section 2. (1) The Commission
    on Audit shall have the power, authority, and duty to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining
    to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or 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 and controlled corporations with original charters, and on a post-audit basis: (a)
    constitutional bodies, commissions and offices that have been granted fiscal autonomy under this
    Constitution; (b) autonomous state colleges and universities; (c) other government-owned or controlled
    corporations with original charters and their subsidiaries; and (d) such non-governmental entities
    receiving subsidy or equity, directly or indirectly, from or through the Government, which are required
    by law of the granting institution to submit to such audit as a condition of subsidy or equity. Since the
    BSP, under its amended charter, continues to be a public corporation or a government instrumentality,
    we come to the inevitable conclusion that it is subject to the exercise by the COA of its audit jurisdiction
    in the manner consistent with the provisions of the BSP Charter. The Petition for prohibition is
    dismissed.

    You might also like