Veterans Federation of the PH v. Reyes
Transcript of Veterans Federation of the PH v. Reyes
-
7/28/2019 Veterans Federation of the PH v. Reyes
1/2
1
Case no. 8
Veterans Federation of the Philippines (VFP) v. Reyes
Petition for Certiorari
Prayer to declare as VOID Department Circular no. 04 of the
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE (DND), dated
June 10, 2002
VFP (petitioner)
-A corporate body organized under RA 2640 (June 18,1960)
Angelo T. Reyes (respondent)
- Secretary of National Defense, who issues theASSAILED CN. 04
Edgardo Batenga
- Undersecretary, who was tasked by the respondent toconduct an EXTENSIVE MANAGEMENT AUDIT
of the records of VFP.
Emmanuel De Ocampo
- Petitioners incumbent presidenta. REYES wrote to DE OCAMPO informing the
corporation that they (DND) came across some legalbases which tended to show that there is an
organizational and management RELATIONSHIP
between VFP and PH Veterans Bank.
a. (letter) VFP is under the control andsupervision of the Secretary of ND. [Sec 1,
RA 2640]
b. (letter) VFP shall make and transmit to thePresident of PH or to the SEC of ND a
REPORT of its proceedings, including a
FULL & COMPLETE report of receipts and
expenditures of whatever kind. [Sec 12, RA
2640]
b.
DND Secretary (petitioner) issues the ASSAILEDDepartment CIRCULAR no. 4 entitled Further
Implementing the Provisions of Sections 1 & 12 of
RA 2640
a. CIRCULAR NO. 4: Rules shall apply to themanagement and operations of VFP.
b. CIRCULAR NO. 4: Definition of terms,relationship between DND and VFP, the
preservation of the records of all business
transactions, VFP should submit ANNUAL
& PERIODIC reports, and there are attached
penal provisions of the law upon
noncompliance.
c. Supervision and control - authority to actdirectly whenever a specific function is
entrusted by law or regulation to a
subordinate (approve, reverse or modify acts
and decisions
d. Power of control power to alter, modifyor nullify or set aside what a subordinate
officer had done in the performance of his
duties
e. Supervision power to see to it that theirsubordinate officers perform their duties
f. Veteran any person who rendered militaryservice in the land, see or air forces of the
PH during wars or military campaigns OR
who rendered military service in the AFP
AND has been honorably discharged or
separated after AT LEAST 6 years tota
cumulative active service or sooner
separated due to death or disability arising
from a wound or injury received or disease
incurred in line of duty while in the active
service.
c. Secretary general of VFP sent a latter to respondentDND Secretary COMPLAINING about the alleged
BROADNESS of the scope of the MANAGEMENT
AUDIT and requesting the SUSPENSION thereof
until such time that specific areas of the audit shal
have been agreed upon.
d. Undersecretary DENIED the letter (reason: there is atimeframe)
e. Petitioner filed this petition for Certiorari withProhibition
a. TRO: implementing DND DEP CN. 4 andthe ongoing management audit o
petitioners books of account.b. DC No. 4 be declared null and void for
being ultra vires
c. Convert TRO into a permanent oneVFPs CLAIM THAT IT IS A PRIVATE NON-
GOVERNMENT CORPORATION.
- VFP claims that DND Circular no. 4 is an INVALIDexercise of respondent Secretarys control and
supervision.
- BECAUSE: It is not a public nor a governmentaentity but a PRIVATE ORGANIZATION.
Central ISSUE: WON VFP is a private corporation.
Supreme Court: We are constrained to rule that VFP is in
fact a PUBLIC CORPORATION.
BECAUSE:
a. RA 2640 An act to create a PUBLICCORPORATION
b. Any act or decisions of the FEDERATION shall besubject to the approval of Sec. of Defense
c. VFP required to SUBMIT annual reportsd. VFP was listed as among the GOCC that will NOT
be privatized
e. VFP is an adjunct of the government (Ang bagongbayani-OFW labor party v. COMELEC)
VFP Supreme Court
- Constitution
EXPLICITYLY prohibit
the regulation by special
laws of private
corporations (except
GOCC)
- There is no challenge in th
creation of VFP in the petition a
to permit this Court fro
considering tis nullity.
1. VFP does not possess
the elements which would
qualify it as a public office
1. Public office an individual
invested with some portion of th
SOVEREIGN FUCNTIONS o
-
7/28/2019 Veterans Federation of the PH v. Reyes
2/2
2
the govt, to be exercised by him
for the benefit of the public.
SOVEREIGN FUNCTION the
protection of the interest of war
veterans is not only meant to
promote social justice, but is also
intended to REWARD patriotism.
Functions of VFP are executive
functions. (Provide immediate
and adequate care, benefits and
other forms of assistance to war
veterans and their surviving
spouses and orphans.)
2. VFP funds are not
public funds
a. No budgetaryappropriations
from DBM
b. VFP fundscome from
membership
dies
c. Lease rentalsraised are
private in
character
2. No budgetary appropriations
does not prove that it is a private
corporation.
DBMs mistake will not prevent
future budgetary appropriations to
the VFP.
Erroneous application of the law
by public officers does not bar a
subsequent coorect application of
the law.
VFP funds are used for public
purposes.
3. Juridical personality of
the VFP emanates from a
statutory character. It is a
private, civilian federation
of VETERANS
voluntarily formed by
veterans themselves
3. Membership of the VFP is not
individual membership of the
affiliate organizations, but
MERELY the aggregation of the
heads of such affiliate
organizations.
4. ADMIN Code of 1987
does not provide VFP as
an attached agency
4. ADMIN Code is not exclusive
5. DBM declared that VFP
is a non-government
organization and issues a
certificate
5. DBM opinion suffers from lack
of explanation and justification in
the certification of non-receipt
where said opinion was given.
DBM did not furnish explanation
for its opinion.
- Petitioner is a public corporation- Assailed circular did not supplant nor modify the
provision of RA 2640
- Secretary of National Defense REQUIREsubmission of reports, documents and other papers
regarding any or all of the federations business
functions
- Even assuming that the assailed circular was notpublished VALIDITY is not affected
o Falls under two of the exceptionso Circular is an INTERNAL REGULATION
o Add nothing to the law and does not affecsubstantial rights
- An office is not rendered inutile by the fact that it isplaced under the control of a higher office
- Circular is perfectly in consonance with RA 2640.- Petition DISMISSED.- Validity AFFIRMED.