Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 148 views

    Bases Conversion and Development Authority vs. Commission On Audit G.R. No. 178160, 26 February 2009 Facts

    Uploaded by

    audrich carlo agustin
    The Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) granted year-end benefits to its Board members and full-time consultants. However, the Commission on Audit (COA) disallowed these benefits, as they violated the Department of Budget and Management's policy prohibiting such benefits for Board members. BCDA appealed, arguing the benefits were allowed under the Philippine Constitution. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the constitutional provisions cited by BCDA were not self-executing and could not be used as the legal basis to justify the benefits. The Court upheld COA's disallowance of the year-end benefits for BCDA Board members and consultants.

    Copyright:

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

    Bases Conversion and Development Authority vs. Commission On Audit G.R. No. 178160, 26 February 2009 Facts

    Uploaded by

    audrich carlo agustin
    148 views1 page
    The Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) granted year-end benefits to its Board members and full-time consultants. However, the Commission on Audit (COA) disallowed these benefits, as they violated the Department of Budget and Management's policy prohibiting such benefits for Board members. BCDA appealed, arguing the benefits were allowed under the Philippine Constitution. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the constitutional provisions cited by BCDA were not self-executing and could not be used as the legal basis to justify the benefits. The Court upheld COA's disallowance of the year-end benefits for BCDA Board members and consultants.

    Original Title

    7-BCDA-vs-COA

    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 Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) granted year-end benefits to its Board members and full-time consultants. However, the Commission on Audit (COA) disallowed these benefits, as they violated the Department of Budget and Management's policy prohibiting such benefits for Board members. BCDA appealed, arguing the benefits were allowed under the Philippine Constitution. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the constitutional provisions cited by BCDA were not self-executing and could not be used as the legal basis to justify the benefits. The Court upheld COA's disallowance of the year-end benefits for BCDA Board members and consultants.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    148 views1 page

    Bases Conversion and Development Authority vs. Commission On Audit G.R. No. 178160, 26 February 2009 Facts

    Uploaded by

    audrich carlo agustin
    The Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) granted year-end benefits to its Board members and full-time consultants. However, the Commission on Audit (COA) disallowed these benefits, as they violated the Department of Budget and Management's policy prohibiting such benefits for Board members. BCDA appealed, arguing the benefits were allowed under the Philippine Constitution. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the constitutional provisions cited by BCDA were not self-executing and could not be used as the legal basis to justify the benefits. The Court upheld COA's disallowance of the year-end benefits for BCDA Board members and consultants.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Bases Conversion and Development Authority vs.

    Commission on Audit
    G.R. No. 178160, 26 February 2009
    Facts:
    On March 13, 1992, RA No. 7227 was approved, creating the Bases Conversion and
    Development Authority (BCDA). Section 9 states that the BCDA Board of Directors (Board)
    shall exercise the powers and functions of BCDA. Section 10 then states that function of the
    Board also includes the adoption of a compensation and benefit scheme at least equivalent to
    the Banko Sentral ng Pilipinas.
    On 20 Dec. 1996, the Board adopted a new compensation and benefit scheme that grants
    year-end benefits to each contractual employee, regular employee, and Board member. Aside
    from this, they also granted it to full-time consultant later on.
    On 25 Aug. 1997, Board Chairman Basco recommended to President Ramos the approval
    of the new scheme. It was approved on 9 Oct. 1997.
    On 20 Feb 2003, COA issued Audit Observation Memorandum No. 2003-004 stating that
    the grant of year-end benefits to Board members was contrary to Department of Budget and
    Management Circular Letter No. 2002-2. On 8 Jan. 2004, COA issued a Notice of Disallowance
    No. 03-001-BCDA-(02) to disallow the year-end benefit to the Board members and Full Time
    Consultants. BCDA filed a notice of appeal dated 8 Sept. 2004 and an appeal memorandum
    dated 23 Dec. 2004 to COA.
    In Decision No. 2007-020, the COA affirmed the disallowance of the year-end benefit
    granted to Board members and full-time consultants and held that good faith did not apply to
    them. As stated in DBM Circular letter No. 2002-02, the members and ex officio members of the
    Board of Directors are not entitled to YEB, they being not salaried officials of the government.
    Good faith is in question because despite the prior notice, the BCDA still enacted a new
    benefit scheme including them in it.
    Thus the petition for certiorari is filed. It seeks to nullify Decision No. 2007-020 dated 12
    April 2007 of COA.

    Issue:
    Whether or not Art.2, Sec. 5 and 18 of the constitution are binding as a legal basis for the
    claim of granting year-end benefit?

    Held:
    No. The court dismissed the claim. Article 2, based on its title, is only a statement of
    general ideological principles and policies. The said provision of Article 2 is not a source of
    enforceable rights. Ina previous similar case (Tondo Medical Center Employees Association v.
    Court of Appeals), the court held that Sec. 5 and 18, Art. 2 of the Constitution are not self-
    executing provisions. Thus, the said provisions are not a legal basis for the said claim

    https://pdfslide.net/documents/bcda-v-coa-case-digest.html

    You might also like