Case Digest: CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT 482 SCRA 233 (2005)

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT 482 SCRA 233 (2005)

“Automatic release” of approved annual appropriations to Civil Service Commission, a constitutional commission which is vested with fiscal autonomy, should thus be construed to mean that no condition to fund releases to it may be imposed. The total funds appropriated by General Appropriations Act of 2002 (GAA) for Civil Service Commission (CSC) was P285,660,790.44. CSC complains that the total funds released by Department of Budget and Management (DBM) was only P279,853,398.14, thereby leaving an unreleased balance of P5,807,392.30. CSC contends that the funds were intentionally withheld by DBM on the ground of their ―no report, no release‖ policy. Hence, CSC filed a petition for mandamus seeking to compel the DBM to release the balance of its budget for fiscal year 2002. At the same time, it seeks a determination by this Court of the extent of the constitutional concept of fiscal autonomy.

ISSUE:

Whether or not DBM‘s policy, ―no report, no release‖ is constitutional.

HELD:

DBM‘s act of withholding the subject funds from CSC due to revenue shortfall is hereby declared unconstitutional.
The no report, no release policy may not be validly enforced against offices vested with fiscal autonomy is not disputed. Indeed, such policy cannot be enforced against offices possessing fiscal autonomy without violating Article IX (A), Section 5 of the Constitution, which provides that the Commission shall enjoy fiscal autonomy and that their approved appropriations shall be automatically and regularly released. The Court held in the case of, Batangas v. Romulo, ―automatic release‖ in Section 6, Article X of the Constitution is defined as ―an automatic manner; without thought or conscious intention.‖ Being ―automatic,‖ thus, connotes something mechanical, spontaneous and perfunctory. As such the LGUs are not required to perform any act to receive the ―just share‖ accruing to them from the national coffers. By parity of construction, ―automatic release‖ of approved annual appropriations to petitioner, a constitutional commission which is vested with fiscal autonomy, should thus be construed to mean that no condition to fund releases to it may be imposed. This conclusion is consistent with the Resolution of this Court which effectively prohibited the enforcement of a ―no report, no release‖ policy against the Judiciary which has also been granted fiscal autonomy by the Constitution. Furthermore, the Constitution grants the enjoyment of fiscal autonomy only to the Judiciary, the Constitutional Commissions, of which petitioner is one, and the Ombudsman. To hold that the CSC may be subjected to withholding or reduction of funds in the event of a revenue shortfall would, to that extent, place CSC and the other entities vested with fiscal autonomy on equal footing with all others which are not granted the same autonomy, thereby reducing to naught the distinction established by the Constitution.

Share this:

Leave a Reply