August 12, 1998
Ponente: Purisima, J.
FACTS
De Jesus, et al. were employees of the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA). Prior to July 1, 1989, they were receiving honoraria as designated members of the LWUA Board Secretariat and the Pre-Qualification, Bids and Awards Committee.
On July 1, 1989, Rep. Act 6758, entitled An Act Prescribing a Revised Compensation and Position Classification System in the Government and For Other Purposes, took effect. Section 12* of said law provides for the consolidation of allowances and additional compensation into standardized salary rates. Certain additional compensations, however, were exempted from consolidation.
To implement Rep. Act 6758, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) issued Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10 (DBM-CCC No. 10), discontinuing without qualification effective November 1, 1989, all allowances and fringe benefits granted on top of basic salary.
Paragraph 5.6 of DBM-CCC No. 10 provides: "Payment of other allowances/fringe benefits and all other forms of compensation granted on top of basic salary, whether in cash or in kind, xxx shall be discontinued effective November 1, 1989. Payment made for such allowances/fringe benefits after said date shall be considered as illegal disbursement of public funds."
Pursuant to the aforesaid Law and Circular, Leonardo Jamoralin, as corporate auditor, disallowed on post audit, the payment of honoraria to De Jesus, et al. The latter filed appeal before the COA on the validity of the subject Circular, arguing that the latter was void for being inconsistent with the provisions of Rep. Act 6758 (the law it is supposed to implement) and for having not been published in the Official Gazette. COA dismissed the appeal.
Hence, the instant petition.
RULING
Petition granted. DBM-CCC No. 10 is void for failing to adhere to the publication requirement as enunciated in Tanada v. Tuvera. COA is ordered to return the petitioners' withheld honoraria.
Whether DBM-CCC No. 10 is legally effective despite its lack of publication in the Official Gazette. – NO.
Following the doctrine enunciated in Tanada v. Tuvera, publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines is required since DBM-CCC No. 10 is in the nature of an administrative circular the purpose of which is to enforce or implement an existing law. Stated differently, to be effective and enforceable, DBM-CCC No. 10 must go through the requisite publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines.
It is clear that DBM-CCC No. 10, which completely disallows payment of allowances and other additional compensation to government officials and employees, starting November 1, 1989, is not a mere interpretative or internal regulation. It is something more than that; it tends to deprive government workers of their allowances and additional compensation sorely needed to keep body and soul together.
At the very least, before the said circular under attack may be permitted to substantially reduce their income, the government officials and employees concerned should be apprised and alerted by the publication of subject circular in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines to the end that they be given amplest opportunity to voice out whatever opposition they may have, and to ventilate their stance on the matter. This approach is more in keeping with democratic precepts and rudiments of fairness and transparency.
Tanada v. Tuvera: We hold therefore that all statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a different effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature.
Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the President in the exercise of legislative powers whenever the same are validly delegated by the legislature or, at present, directly conferred by the Constitution. Administrative rules and regulations must also be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation.
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.
Accordingly, even the charter of a city must be published notwithstanding that it applies to only a portion of the national territory and directly affects only the inhabitants of that place. All presidential decrees must be published, including even, say, those naming a public place after a favored individual or exempting him from certain prohibitions or requirements.
The circulars issued by the Monetary Board must be published if they are meant not merely to interpret but to fill in the details of the Central Bank Act which that body is supposed to enforce.
Whether DBM-CCC No. 10 is inconsistent with Rep. Act 6758. – IT DOES NOT MATTER.
In light of the ineffectiveness of DBM-CCC No. 10 due to its non-publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the country, as required by law, resolution of whether or not it is inconsistent with Rep. Act 6758 is deemed unnecessary.
DOCTRINE
An administrative circular the purpose of which is to
enforce or implement an existing law requires publication in the
Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the
Philippines for it to be validly implemented.
