You're currently signed in as:
User

NARCISO E. MAMARIL v. EUFEMIO C. DOMINGO

This case has been cited 1 times or more.

2012-01-24
VELASCO JR., J.
The Constitution, by express provision, vests the COA with the responsibility for State audit.[154]  As an independent supreme State auditor, its audit jurisdiction cannot be undermined by any law.  Indeed, under Article IX (D), Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution, "[n]o law shall be passed exempting any entity of the Government or its subsidiary in any guise whatever, or any investment of public funds, from the jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit."[155]  Following the mandate of the COA and the parameters set forth by the foregoing provisions, it is clear that it has jurisdiction over the coconut levy funds, being special public funds.  Conversely, the COA has the power, authority and duty to examine, audit and settle all accounts pertaining to the coconut levy funds and, consequently, to the UCPB shares purchased using the said funds.  However, declaring the said funds as partaking the nature of private funds, ergo subject to private appropriation, removes them from the coffer of the public funds of the government, and consequently renders them impervious to the COA audit jurisdiction.  Clearly, the pertinent provisions of P.D. Nos. 961 and 1468 divest the COA of its constitutionally-mandated function and undermine its constitutional independence.