National Amnesty Commission vs. Commission on Audit

Representatives of ex officio members who are covered by the constitutional prohibition against holding multiple offices and receiving double compensation are themselves prohibited from receiving additional compensation for attending meetings in behalf of their principals.

The National Amnesty Commission (NAC) was created by then President Fidel V. Ramos through Proclamation No. 347 on March 25, 1994, to receive, process, and review amnesty applications. The NAC is composed of seven members: a Chairperson, three regular members appointed by the President, and the Secretaries of Justice, National Defense, and Interior and Local Government as ex officio members. After personally attending initial meetings, the three ex officio members turned over the responsibility to their respective representatives. These representatives were paid honoraria beginning December 12, 1994.

• Creation and Composition of the NAC: The NAC was established by Proclamation No. 347 to process amnesty applications. Its seven-member composition includes the Secretaries of Justice, National Defense, and Interior and Local Government as ex officio members.
• Designation of Representatives: After attending initial meetings, the ex officio members designated representatives to attend NAC meetings in their stead. These representatives were paid honoraria starting December 12, 1994.
• Audit Disallowance: On October 15, 1997, NAC resident auditor Ernesto C. Eulalia disallowed the payment of honoraria to the representatives, totaling ₱255,750 for the period of December 12, 1994, to June 27, 1997, pursuant to COA Memorandum No. 97-038. The NGAO upheld this order on September 21, 1998.
• Issuance of Administrative Order No. 2: On April 28, 1999, the NAC passed Administrative Order No. 2, its new Implementing Rules and Regulations, approved by then President Joseph Estrada on October 19, 1999. Section 1, Rule II thereof provided that ex officio members may designate representatives who "shall be entitled to per diems, allowances, bonuses and other benefits as may be authorized by law."
• COA Reversal: The COA affirmed the disallowance and declared the assailed provision of Administrative Order No. 2 null and void for being an ultra vires act, as Proclamation No. 347 never mentioned that representatives could receive per diems and allowances.

• Lack of Publication: Petitioner argued that COA Memorandum No. 97-038 is invalid and unenforceable for lack of the publication required under Article 2 of the Civil Code.
• Misapplication of Constitutional Prohibition: Petitioner maintained that paragraph 2, Section 7, Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution was erroneously invoked, as the representatives were appointive officials with ranks below Assistant Secretary.
• Ultra Vires Declaration: Petitioner contended that the COA acted beyond its mandate by declaring Section 1, Rule II of Administrative Order No. 2 null and void.
• De Facto Officer Status: Petitioner asserted that the representatives are de facto officers entitled to the allowances attached to the office.
• Authority to Attend: Petitioner argued that the disallowance on the ground of lack of authority of the representatives to attend NAC meetings was erroneous.

• Internal Memorandum: Respondent countered that COA Memorandum No. 97-038 is an internal and interpretative directive that does not require publication.
• Constitutional Prohibition: Respondent argued that the representatives are covered by the same constitutional prohibition against double compensation that binds their principals, the Cabinet Secretaries.
• Ultra Vires IRR: Respondent maintained that the NAC exceeded its rule-making authority by adding a provision for allowances in Administrative Order No. 2 that was not found in the enabling Proclamation No. 347.

• Validity of COA Memorandum No. 97-038: Whether COA Memorandum No. 97-038 requires publication in the Official Gazette to be valid and effective.
• Double Compensation: Whether the representatives of ex officio members are entitled to honoraria or additional compensation notwithstanding the constitutional prohibition against double compensation.
• Validity of Administrative Order No. 2: Whether Section 1, Rule II of Administrative Order No. 2 validly entitles representatives to additional compensation.
• De Facto Officer Status: Whether the designated representatives qualify as de facto officers entitled to the emoluments of the office.

• Validity of COA Memorandum No. 97-038: Publication is not required for the memorandum's validity. The directive is merely an internal and interpretative regulation issued by the COA to its auditors to enforce the self-executing constitutional prohibition against multiple positions and double compensation, rather than an implementing rule affecting the public.
• Double Compensation: The representatives are prohibited from receiving additional compensation. The agent cannot have a better right than the principal. Because the ex officio members (Cabinet Secretaries) are proscribed from receiving extra compensation for ex officio posts, their representatives are similarly restricted. Furthermore, the representatives assumed their roles by mere designation, not appointment; designation does not entail payment of additional benefits or the right to claim the salary attached to a position.
• Validity of Administrative Order No. 2: The provision is valid on its face but was misinterpreted by the NAC. The phrase "as may be authorized by law" acknowledges that payment must be sanctioned by law; because the Constitution and statutes prohibit it, no payment can be made. Moreover, the administrative order merely allows representatives to attend as guests or witnesses, not to substitute for the ex officio members in determining quorum or voting.
• De Facto Officer Status: De facto officer status was correctly denied. A de facto officer derives authority from an appointment, however irregular; a mere designation does not suffice. Furthermore, the representatives cannot claim good faith given the express constitutional prohibition and the finality of the Civil Liberties Union ruling prior to their receipt of the allowances.

• Publication of Administrative Rules — Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature—regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the public—need not be published to be valid and effective. COA Memorandum No. 97-038 falls under this exception as it merely directs auditors to enforce a self-executing constitutional prohibition.
• Prohibition against Double Compensation for Ex Officio Members — Cabinet Secretaries, their deputies, and assistants holding ex officio positions are prohibited from receiving additional compensation because their services in those capacities are already paid for and covered by the compensation attached to their principal offices. This prohibition applies with equal force to their designated representatives.
• Designation vs. Appointment — An appointment is the selection by the proper authority of an individual to exercise the powers and functions of a given office. A designation merely connotes an imposition of additional duties upon a person already in the public service by virtue of an earlier appointment. Designation does not entitle the person to the salary or emoluments of the position.

• "Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the public, need not be published. Neither is publication required of the so-called letters of instructions issued by administrative superiors concerning the rules or guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the performance of their duties." — Establishes the exception to the publication requirement for administrative rules.
• "The agent, alternate or representative cannot have a better right than his principal, the ex officio member. The laws, rules, prohibitions or restrictions that cover the ex officio member apply with equal force to his representative." — Articulates the principle that representatives are bound by the same compensation restrictions as their principals.
• "There is a considerable difference between an appointment and designation. An appointment is the selection by the proper authority of an individual who is to exercise the powers and functions of a given office; a designation merely connotes an imposition of additional duties, usually by law, upon a person already in the public service by virtue of an earlier appointment." — Distinguishes appointment from designation in the context of entitlement to compensation.

• Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317 [1991] — Controlling precedent. Established that Cabinet Secretaries, their deputies, and assistants are strictly prohibited from holding multiple offices and receiving double compensation, except in ex officio capacities without additional compensation. Also defined the de facto officer doctrine in this context.
• Tañada v. Tuvera, 146 SCRA 446 [1986] — Followed. Laid down the rule that interpretative and internal administrative regulations need not be published.
• Dimaandal v. COA, 291 SCRA 322 [1998] — Followed. Distinguished appointment from designation and established that designation does not entitle an officer to the salary of the position.
• de la Cruz v. COA, 371 SCRA 157 [2001] — Followed. Upheld the disallowance of honoraria and per diems to officers sitting as ex officio members or alternates.
• Bitonio v. COA, G.R. No. 147392, March 12, 2004 — Followed. Upheld the disallowance of honoraria and per diems to officers sitting as ex officio members or alternates.

• Article 2, Civil Code — Requires publication of laws for their effectivity. Held inapplicable to COA Memorandum No. 97-038 because the memorandum is an internal and interpretative regulation.
• Section 13, Article VII, 1987 Constitution — Prohibits the President, Vice-President, Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants from holding any other office or employment during their tenure, unless otherwise provided in the Constitution, and from receiving double compensation. Applied as the stricter prohibition covering the ex officio members and their representatives.
• Paragraph 2, Section 7, Article IX-B, 1987 Constitution — Provides the general rule that no appointive official shall hold any other office or employment in the government unless allowed by law or by the primary functions of their position. Recognized as the blanket prohibition subsuming all appointive officials, subject to the stricter exception for the Cabinet under Section 13, Article VII.
• Sections 54 and 56, Administrative Code of 1987 — Reiterate the constitutional prohibitions against multiple positions and additional or double compensation. Applied to show lack of legal basis for the representatives' honoraria.
• Section 52, Presidential Decree No. 1445 — Authorizes the COA to motu proprio review and revise settled accounts within three years. Applied to validate the COA's reopening of the NAC accounts.

Davide, Jr., Puno, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario. (Austria-Martinez and Carpio Morales were on official leave).