This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2011-06-07 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In its Comment[35] dated October 22, 2010, the COA argues that the constitutionality of Commonwealth Act No. 111, as amended, is not determinative of the resolution of the present controversy on the COA's audit jurisdiction over petitioner, and in fact, the controversy may be resolved on other grounds; thus, the requisites before a judicial inquiry may be made, as set forth in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Tax Appeals,[36] have not been fully met.[37] Moreover, the COA maintains that behind every law lies the presumption of constitutionality.[38] The COA likewise argues that contrary to the BSP's position, repeal of a law by implication is not favored. [39] Lastly, the COA claims that there was no violation of Section 16, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution with the creation or declaration of the BSP as a government corporation. Citing Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Commission on Audit,[40] the COA further alleges: The true criterion, therefore, to determine whether a corporation is public or private is found in the totality of the relation of the corporation to the State. If the corporation is created by the State as the latter's own agency or instrumentality to help it in carrying out its governmental functions, then that corporation is considered public; otherwise, it is private. x x x. [41] | |||||