Issue WN the provincial auditor being an LGU committed abuse of discretion in

Issue wn the provincial auditor being an lgu

This preview shows page 79 - 81 out of 103 pages.

Issue: W/N the provincial auditor being an LGU committed abuse of discretion in approving the incentive benfits without prior approval of the President Ruling: No, Petitioner being an LGU it is only under the president’s general supervion therefore the President may only point that the rules had not been followed but the president cannot lay down the rules, neither does he have the discretion to modify or replace the rules. The grant of additional compensation in the present case does not need the approval of the president. There was no abuse of discretion on the part of the LGU NOTE: President’s General Supervision – Ensure that the laws are faithfully executed. Presindent’s Power of Control – The president may set aside the judgement or action taken by a subordinate in the performance of his duties. Sections 1 and 2 of AO 103 state: SECTION 1 - All agencies of the National Government including government-owned and/or -controlled corporations and government financial institutions, and local government units, SECTION 2 - All heads of government offices/agencies, including government owned and/or controlled corporations, as well as their respective governing boards are hereby enjoined and prohibited from authorizing/granting Productivity Incentive Benefits or any and all forms of allowances/benefits without prior approval and authorization via Administrative Order by the Office of the President.
Image of page 79
42 SCRA 448 Dec. 11, 1971 TeodosioLansang, et al. , petitioners v. Brigadier-General Eduardo M. Garcia , respondent. FACTS: On Aug. 23, 1971, President Ferdinand E. Marcos announced the issuance of Proclamation no. 889, which suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Petitioners filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus after being arrested without a warrant and assailed the authority and validity of the proclamation as well as that of their detention. Petitioners argued that Proclamation No. 889 did not declare the existence of actual invasion, insurrection, or insurrection. Shortly after, the President issued Proclamation No. 889-A, which amended the first “whereas” of the original proclamation by stating that the said lawless elements “have entered into a conspiracy and banded their forces for the purpose of staging, waging, and are actually engaged in an armed insurrection and rebellion in order to overthrow the duly constituted government.” ISSUE/S: WON the President’s issuance of Proclamation No. 889 is valid. HELD: Yes, the President’s issuance of Proclamation No. 889 is valid. The President could have declared a general suspension of the privilege. Instead, Proclamation No. 889 limited the suspension to persons detained "for crimes of insurrection or rebellion, and all other crimes and offenses committed by them in furtherance or on the occasion thereof, or incident thereto, or in connection therewith." This was further limited by Proclamation No. 889- A, which withdrew from the coverage of the suspension persons detained for other crimes and
Image of page 80
Image of page 81

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 103 pages?

  • Fall '16
  • President of the United States, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Joseph Estrada

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture