The Administrative Code of 1987 provides that the term Government of the Republic of the Philippines

(GRP) refers to the corporate governmental entity through which the functions of government are
exercised throughout the Philippines, including, save as the contrary appears from the context, the
various arms through which political authority is made effective in the Philippines, whether pertaining to
the autonomous regions, the provincial, city, municipal or barangay subdivisions or other forms of local
government.

It is differentiated from the term National Government which was emphasized in the case of CENTRAL
BANK v. CA. Under the Administrative Code itself, the term "National Government" refers only to the
central government, consisting of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the government,

is not synonymous, therefore, with the terms "The Government of the Republic of the Philippines" or
"Philippine Government".

In this case , Whether Section 607 of the Revised Administrative Code (RAC) apply to the Central Bank so
as to render void the contract entered into by CB and Ablaza

”no contract involving an expenditure by the National Government of three thousand pesos or more
shall be entered into or authorized until the Auditor General”

Central Bank is a government instrumentality. But it was created as an autonomous body to be

governed by the provisions of its charter, Republic Act 265, "to administer the monetary and banking
system of the Republic." It does not depend on the National Government for the financing of its
operations; it is the National Government that occasionally resorts to it for needed budgetary
accommodations.

Like what was stated about Central Bank about its ability to acquire and hold assets as well as to incur
liabilities for its operations, Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration (PVTA) is also an entity that is
separate and distinct from the govt which owns and controls it; therefore in the case of RCBC v. DE
CASTRO, it was ruled that the funds of PVTA are not public funds are not exempt from garnishment.

Also related to being a separate judicial entity, the issue in the case of SSS vs. CA is whether or not can
the SSS be sued and be made liable for the negligence of its employees and the court ruled, yes. SSS is a
juridical entity with a personality of its own. It has corporate powers separate and distinct from the
Government. SSS' own organic act specifically provides that it can sue and be sued in Court. These words
"sue and be sued" embrace all civil process incident to a legal action

Also in line with the incurrence of liability or expenditure, in the case of SSS v. CITY OF BACOLOD, the
court upheld the charter of City of Bacolod in deciding on whether or SSS is liable for the payment of
real estate taxes. Since the charter of the city provides that

In this case, the Supreme Court held that under Section 29 of the Charter of the City of Bacolod, lands
and buildings owned by the Republic of the Philippines, regardless of whether such property is devoted
to governmental or proprietary purpose is exempt from payment of real estate taxes; and that
Presidential Decree No. 24, which amended the Social Security Act of 1954, has removed all doubts as to
the exemption of the SSS from taxation by explicitly providing for such exemption. PD 24 “SEC. 16.
Exemption from tax, legal process, and lien. — All laws to the contrary notwithstanding, the SSS and all
its assets, all contributions collected and all accruals thereto and income therefrom as well as all benefit
payments and all papers or documents which may be required in connection with the operation or
execution of this Act shall be exempt from any tax, assessment, fee, charge or customs or import duty;
and all benefit payments made by the SSS shall likewise be exempt from all kinds of taxes, fees or
charges, and shall not be liable to attachment, garnishments, levy or seizure by or under any legal or
equitable process whatsoever, either before or after receipt by the person or persons entitled thereto,
except to pay any debt of the covered employee to the SSS

The distinction laid down in "NACOCO versus Bacani" between government agencies exercising
constituent functions, on the one hand, and those performing ministrant functions, on the other, has
therefore no relevance to the issue before Us. What is decisive is that the properties possessed by the
SSS, albeit devoted to private or proprietary purpose, are in fact owned by the government of the
Philippines. As such they are exempt from realty taxes. It is axiomatic that when public property is
involved, exemption is the rule and taxation, the exception.

There are cases however where the two-fold functions of the government has held relevance in the
decision of the case. The function encompassed in constituent functions are those compulsory in nature;
while ministrant functions are involved more on public welfare and public good. In the case of Bacani v.
National Coconut Corporation (NCC), it was held that the purpose of NCC which to promote the coconut
industry is a ministrant function. The court ruled that it is not a government entity and is therefore not
exempted from paying the fees in question. NCC belongs to what we call the governmentowned and
controlled corporation, which is governed by Corporation Law.

In the case, however, of Romualdez-Yap v. CSC, the court ruled that in a reorganization it is not material
whether the entity is in a government bureau performing constituent functions or in a government-
owned or controlled corporation performing ministrant functions. What is needed is the test of good
faith. There is good faith when the reorganization is done for the purpose of economy or to make
bureaucracy more efficient.

Lastly, what is involved is the nature of DBP. In DBP v. COA, the court ruled that DBP is an economic
agent in the public sector acquired by the government. Thus, the imposition of terms and conditions of
employment in this case, being government employees are to be regulated by the legislative
department or the administrative heads, if such were properly delegated, and not by bargaining
agreements.

However, in the dissenting opinion of Justice Leonen, DBP is an "economic agent in the public sector
acquired by the government. It was established as a separate corporate entity to engage in the banking
business—with a private and commercial objective—and as such, different from regular agencies of the
government performing governmental functions.” The employees herein are to be considered to be like
that in government corporations.