Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Dadole et al. vs.

COA
Facts: The petitioners are RTC and MTC judges of Mandaue City which enjoys
additional allowance granted by the local Sanggunian to them of 1,500 pesos in
1991. On March 15, 1994, the Department of Budget and Management or DBM
issued a Local Budget Circular No. 55 which limits the grant of the city or
municipality to national employees up to 1,000 pesos only and to refund the excess
to the local government. The said circular was made effective immediately. The
circular was questioned by the petitioner on the ground that the circular is beyond
the authority of the DBM which merely oversees that the disbursement of fund is in
accordance with the law and that the local government enjoys the autonomy to
disburse additional allowance for national government employees in their
municipality. Moreover, the circular is void for lack of proper publication. Treating
the action as a motion for reconsideration, it was brought to the Regional office of
COA and denied the same. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: whether or not the Circular is void?
Held: the supreme court ruled in affirmative
Ratio: under the constitution, the local government enjoys autonomy; however, this
is subject to the power of control by the congress and supervision by the president.
Supervision is different from control. Under the administrative law, the supervision
means the power to oversee or the authority of the officer to see that his
subordinate officers performs his duties and if the latter fails, the former may
institute action in accordance with the law to make the latter perform his duties.
Control, on the other hand, means the power of the officer to alter or modify or
nullify or set aside what the subordinate officer has done in the performance of his
duties and to substitute his judgment of the former to the latter. Clearly then that
the President can only interfere with the local government when the latter acted
contrary to law. He cannot interfere with the latter if it acted within the parameters
of the law and constitution. The DBM overstep its power of supervision by imposing
prohibition not in accordance with the law. The law is also void for lack of
publication. Citing Tanada vs. Tuvera, publication is required in official gazette or
newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines since the DBM circular is in a
nature of administrative circular the purpose of which is to implement existing laws.
The circular is more than a mere interpretation of law. At very least, before the said
circular be permitted to substantially reduce the income of government officials and
employees, they should be appraised or alerted by publication of the subject
circular in official gazette or newspaper of general circulation to the end of giving
them ample opportunity to voice whatever opposition they may have and ventilate
their stance on the matter. This approach is more in keeping with democratic
precepts and rudiments of fairness and transparency. Publication is a condition
precedent and subsequent publication does not cure its defect.