Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 69 views

    Power Sector Assets & Liabilities Management Corporation Vs Commission On Audit, G.R. No. 213425, April 27, 2021

    Uploaded by

    Gi No
    1) PSALM Corporation requested COA and OGCC's concurrence to engage legal advisors Mr. Yeap and Atty. Tantoco for 6 months to assist with privatizing generation assets and IPP contracts as mandated by EPIRA. 2) The issue was whether differences in treatment between NGAs and GOCCs violated equal protection. 3) The court ruled no violation, as GOCCs and NGAs have substantial distinctions justifying different regulations regarding expense reimbursements. COA policies aim to properly check GOCC spending autonomy versus appropriated NGA funds. Absent abuse, the court defers to COA's constitutional role.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Power Sector Assets & Liabilities Management Corporation Vs Commission On Audit, G.R. No. 213425, April 27, 2021

    Uploaded by

    Gi No
    69 views1 page
    1) PSALM Corporation requested COA and OGCC's concurrence to engage legal advisors Mr. Yeap and Atty. Tantoco for 6 months to assist with privatizing generation assets and IPP contracts as mandated by EPIRA. 2) The issue was whether differences in treatment between NGAs and GOCCs violated equal protection. 3) The court ruled no violation, as GOCCs and NGAs have substantial distinctions justifying different regulations regarding expense reimbursements. COA policies aim to properly check GOCC spending autonomy versus appropriated NGA funds. Absent abuse, the court defers to COA's constitutional role.

    Original Description:

    Case Penned By Justice Mario V. Lopez

    Original Title

    Power Sector Assets & Liabilities Management Corporation vs Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 213425, April 27, 2021

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) PSALM Corporation requested COA and OGCC's concurrence to engage legal advisors Mr. Yeap and Atty. Tantoco for 6 months to assist with privatizing generation assets and IPP contracts as mandated by EPIRA. 2) The issue was whether differences in treatment between NGAs and GOCCs violated equal protection. 3) The court ruled no violation, as GOCCs and NGAs have substantial distinctions justifying different regulations regarding expense reimbursements. COA policies aim to properly check GOCC spending autonomy versus appropriated NGA funds. Absent abuse, the court defers to COA's constitutional role.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    69 views1 page

    Power Sector Assets & Liabilities Management Corporation Vs Commission On Audit, G.R. No. 213425, April 27, 2021

    Uploaded by

    Gi No
    1) PSALM Corporation requested COA and OGCC's concurrence to engage legal advisors Mr. Yeap and Atty. Tantoco for 6 months to assist with privatizing generation assets and IPP contracts as mandated by EPIRA. 2) The issue was whether differences in treatment between NGAs and GOCCs violated equal protection. 3) The court ruled no violation, as GOCCs and NGAs have substantial distinctions justifying different regulations regarding expense reimbursements. COA policies aim to properly check GOCC spending autonomy versus appropriated NGA funds. Absent abuse, the court defers to COA's constitutional role.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Power Sector Assets & Liabilities Management Corp Vs Commission on Audit, G.R. No.

    213425, April 27, 2021

    M. Lopez, M. J:

    Facts:
    PSALM Corporation requested the respective concurrences of COA and OGCC to the engagement of Mr. Yeap and
    Atty. Tantoco as its legal advisors on the privatization of the generation assets and IPP contracts of the National
    Power Corporation. The engagement was for a period of 6 months. The letters also stated that: a) the legal services
    to be provided by these consultants shall not involve handling of cases and representation in court as the same
    pertain to the OGCC; and b) the engagement of these consultants is necessary to the implementation of PSALM's
    mandate to privatize under Republic Act No. 9136 (RA 9136) or the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA) of
    2001.

    Issue:
    Whether or not, the principle of equal protection violated by the difference in treatment between NGAs and
    GOCCs.

    Ruling/Held:
    No.The principle of equal protection was not violated when some GOCCs were allegedly allowed to use
    certifications as supporting documents for EME reimbursements. Neither does the difference in treatment
    between NGAs and GOCCs violate such principle.

    For one, PSALM did not adduce evidence to support the truth and veracity of this allegation. At any rate, unless
    there is a showing of an intentional or arbitrary discrimination, the Auditor's alleged failure to enforce COA Circular
    No. 2006-001 upon certain GOCCs would not prove a violation of the equal protection clause. Such omission on the
    part of the State's agent, if at all, is of no controlling significance to the valid implementation of the circular to all
    GOCCs because the State cannot be estopped by the omission, mistake or error of its officials or agents; it cannot
    be barred from correcting a public officer's mistake or erroneous application of a law. Besides, an unlawful and
    irregular act cannot be legitimized by mere continuous practice, nor can it give rise to a vested right.

    Moreover, there exists a substantial distinction between officials of NGAs and the officials of GOCCs, GFIs and their
    subsidiaries which justify the peculiarity in regulation. Since the EME of GOCCs, GFIs and their subsidiaries, are,
    pursuant to law, allocated by their own internal governing boards, as opposed to the EME of NGAs which are
    appropriated in the annual GAA duly enacted by Congress, there is a perceivable rational impetus for the COA to
    impose nuanced control measures to check if the EME disbursements of GOCCs, GFIs and their subsidiaries
    constitute irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable government expenditures. The
    difference in treatment is a COA policy intended to address the disparity in EME disbursement autonomy of the
    NGAs and GOCCs. Hence, in due deference to the COA's constitutional prerogatives, the Court, absent any
    semblance of grave abuse of discretion in this case, respects the regulation.

    You might also like