108. LIGA v.

COMELEC
G.R. Nos. 114809 & 114896;
May 5, 1994
Ponente: Padilla, J.

FACTS:
This became a joint petition for prohibition filed by Liga Ng Mga Barangay, an organization of
barangays represented by Alex David, its president and secretary general, and also a tax prayer.
These petitions with prayer for a temporary restraining order questions what they 1F CASE
DIGESTS | 166 perceive as “the threatened illegal transfer, disbursement & use of public funds
in a manner contrary to the Constitution and the law” with regard to the forthcoming barangay
elections.

Petitioners claim that in the General Appropriation Act of 1994, only One Hundred Thirty-Seven
Million Eight Hundred Seventy-Eight Thousand Pesos (P137, 878, 000.00) were appropriated by
Congress for the May 1994 elections, an amount they assessed themselves to be insufficient to
defray the cost of holding the elections.

Thus, in order to augment the appropriated amount, the petitioners allege that the respondents
have “threatened” and are about to effect a transfer or re-allocation of the following amounts to
be sourced from the executive & legislative branches of the Government to respondent
Commission on Elections (COMELEC):
1) One Hundred Eighty Million Pesos (P180,000,000) from the appropriation of the
Department of Interior & Local Government (DILG)
2) One Hundred Million Pesos (P100,000,000) from the Country Side Development
Fund; Seventy Million Pesos (P70,000,000) from the Senate; Thirty Million Pesos
(P30,000,000) from the House of Representatives
3) Forty Three Million Pesos (P43,000,000) from the Internal Revenue Allotments (IRA)
of Provinces, Cities and Municipalities

Note that these figures were only culled by the petitioners from a news item of the Manila
Bulletin entitled “Barangay Poll Funds Found”, acting solely on the basis of reports made in a
newspaper—without first asking whether COMELEC, the DILG, and/or any of the respondents
would indeed initiate the alleged transfer of funds for the purpose of holding the May 1994
barangay elections.
The respondents aver that COMELEC never planned to secure any funding from the DILG,
CDFS, or IRAs, as alleged by the petitioners, or from any other source that would be contrary to
the Constitution and the election laws. It alleges that it intends to fund the forthcoming barangay
elections from the following:
1) P137,878,000 appropriated by the Congress for the said elections
2) From COMELEC’s own savings resulting from unused funds originally intended for
the conduct & supervision of elections and other political exercises—like sectoral
elections that didn’t take place
3) From COMELEC’s Modernization Program
4) From Local Government Unit (LGU) funds

With regard to the local government unit funds they believe would help defray the cost of the
forthcoming elections, the respondents cite Opinion No. 51, s. 1994 by the Honorable, the
Secretary of Justice wherein the former claims that under Omnibus Election Code, Section 50,
the local government units are required to appropriate funds for the barangay elections. Pursuant
to this opinion of the Secretary of Justice, they issued Comelec Resolution No. 2713
promulgating the guidelines for the sharing by local government units in the expenses of the
barangay elections.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the impleaded public respondents (COMELEC) are attempting or intending to
effect the transfer of funds which would be in direct contravention of Article VI Sec. 25(5) of the
1987 Constitution. (NO)

HELD:
The Court, finding the explanation of respondents to be well taken, resolved to DISMISS the
petitions for lack of merit. Even though the petitioners displayed vigilance and acted with the
best of intentions in filing the petitions, they could have asked to obtain first an official statement
or at least confirmation from the respondents as to the veracity of the reports in the news item
since it could’ve been simply quoted out of context by the reporter, or abbreviated to meet the
day’s deadline.
Apparently, the threat to pursue the scheme, if there ever was one, existed only in newspaper
reports which could’ve misled the general public, including the petitioners in believing that the
same emanated from unimpeccable sources. The reports were mere unofficial proposals or
suggestions made in the process of searching for funds for the elections, but they were later
discarded by the proponents themselves.
The Solicitor General defends the above COMELEC scheme as allowed by:
(1) Article VI, Section 25(5)
(2) General Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year, Sections 17 & 19
ARTICLE VI, SECTION 25(5). “No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of
appropriations; however, the President, and the President of the Senate, the Speaker of
the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of
Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any time in the
general appropriations law their respective offices from savings in other items of their
respective appropriations.”
GAA FOR 1994 FISCAL YEAR. “….Heads of Constitutional Commissions under
Article XI of the Constitution, the Ombudsman and the Commission on Human Rights
are hereby authorized to augment any item in this Act for their respective offices from
savings in other items of their respective appropriations.” (Section 17)

NOTE:
AUGMENTATION: Augmentation implies the existence in this Act of an item, project, activity
or purpose with an appropriation which upon implementation or subsequent evaluation of needed
resources is determined to be deficient. In no case therefore shall non-existent item, project,
activity, purpose or object of expenditure be funded by augmentation from savings or by the use
of appropriations authorized otherwise in this Act. (Section 19, 1994 GAA)