Jenny Marie Alapan First year Sanchez Roman

Lawyers League vs. Aquino

Gr. No. 73748, 20 May, 1986
EN BANC
Facts:
On February 25, 1986, President Aquino issued Proclamation No. 1 which
announced that she and Laurel, the Vice President, were taking power. On March 25,
1986, proclamation No. 3 was issued that provided the basis of the Aquino government
gaining the power which stated that the “new government was installed through direct
exercise of the power of the Filipino people assisted by units of the New Armed Forces
of the Philippines”
As the result, the petitioner questioned the legitimacy of Aquino government. They
claimed that her government is illegal because it was not established pursuant to the 1976
Constitution.
Issue:
1.) Whether or not the government of Corazon Aquino is legitimate.
Held:
The two petitions obviously are not impressed with merit. The case is
dismissed.
Petitioners have no personality to sue their petition state no action. For legitimacy
of Aquino’s government is not justiciable matter but a political one where only people of
the Philippines are the judge. Basing on people’s judgment, they have accepted the
government of President Aquino which is in effective control of the entire country. In other
words, the Aquino government is not merely a de facto government (actually
exercises power to control but without legal title) but it is in fact a de jure
government (has rightful title but no power or control either because the same has
been withdrawn from it; or because the same has not yet actually entered into
exercise thereof).
The Aquino government was a result of a “direct state action.” it was not as if a
small group revolted and succeeded in wrestling power in the end. Rather, it was the
entire state revolted and overthrew the government, so right from the beginning, the
installation was already lawful and the government was at all timed de jure.
CASE:GUALBERTO J. DELA LLANA V. THE CHAIRPERSON, COMMISSION ON
AUDIT, et al.
7 February 2012
G.R. No. 180989; 665 SCRA 176
(Sereno, J .)
Facts:
This is a Petition in pursuant to Section 7, Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution,
seeking to annul and set aside Commission on Audit (COA) Circular No. 89-299, which
lifted its system of pre-audit of government financial transactions.
The rationale for the circular was, first to reaffirm the concept that fiscal
responsibility resides in management as embodied in the Government Auditing Code of
the Philippines; and, second, to contribute to accelerating the delivery of public services
and improving government operations by curbing undue bureaucratic red tape and
ensuring facilitation of government transactions, while continuing to preserve and protect
the integrity of these transactions.
As a taxpayer, Petitioner alleged that pre-audit duty on the part of the COA cannot
be lifted by mere circular, considering the pre-audit is a constitutional mandate enshrined
in Section 2 of Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution. Moreover, he claims that because of
the lack of pre-audit by COA, serious irregularities in the government transactions have
been committed.
ISSUE:
1. WON Petitioner has legal standing
2. Whether or not it is the constitutional duty of COA to conduct pre-audit before the
consummation of government transaction.
Held:
1.) Yes. Standing- This Petition is a taxpayer’s suit. A taxpayer is deemed to have
standing to raise a constitutional issue when it is established that public funds from
taxation have been wrongly disbursed. Petitioner claims that the issuance of Circular No.
89299 has led to the dissipation of public funds through numerous irregularities in
government financial transactions. These transactions have allegedly been left
unchecked by the lifting of the pre- audit performed by COA, which petitioner argues, is
its Constitutional duty. Thus, petitioner has standing to file this suit as a taxpayer, since
he would be adversely affected by the illegal use of public money.
2.) It is not constitutional duty of the COA to conduct a pre-audit- The petitioner’s
allegations find no support in the Section 2 of Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution. In the
said provision, it did not mention that it requires the COA to conduct a pre-audit of all
government transactions and for all government agencies. The only clear reference to
pre-audit requirement is found in Section 2, paragraph 1, which provides that a post-audit
is mandated for certain government or private entities with state subsidy or equity and
only when the internal control system of an audited entity is inadequate. In such situation,
the COA may adopt measures, including temporary or special pre-audit, to correct the
deficiencies.
Hence, the conduct of pre-audit is not mandatory duty in which the Court cannot
compel the COA to perform such act. In accordance to the constitutional pronouncement,
COA has the exclusive authority to define the scope of its audit and examination.