[ G.R. No. 231871, July 06, 2021 ]
GLADYS MINERVA N. BILIBLI, DARROW P. ODSEY, AND ZENAIDA BRIGIDA H. PAWID, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.
CONCURRING OPINION
LEONEN, J.:
Petitioners in this case are officials and employees of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), who had a lofty goal: the development of skills and competencies for the NCIP to better serve indigenous peoples.
A scholarship program was provided for these officials and employees. However, the Commission on Audit issued a Notice of Disallowance on the ground that there was no basis for the NCIP to allocate funds for the scholarship program.
I join the very enlightened ponencia of my esteemed colleague, Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier, in excusing the recipients of the scholarship funds, as well as the approving and certifying officers, from their duty to return the disallowed amounts.
I just add that this case involves facts which warrants the application of Rule 2(d) of the rules in Madera v. Commission on Audit,1 to wit:
2. If a Notice of Disallowance is upheld, the rules on return are as follows:
....
d. The Court may likewise excuse the return of recipients based on undue prejudice, social justice considerations, and other bona fide exceptions as it may determine on a case to case basis.
The proper interpretation and application of Rule 2d was explained in Abellanosa v. COA2
This exception was borne from the recognition that in certain instances, the attending facts of a given case may furnish an equitable basis for the payees to retain the amounts they had received. While Rule 2d is couched in broader language as compared to Rule 2c, the application of Rule 2d should always remain true to its purpose: it must constitute a bona fide instance which strongly impels the Court to prevent a clear inequity arising from a directive to return. Ultimately, it is only in highly exceptional circumstances, after taking into account all factors (such as the nature and purpose of the disbursement, and its underlying conditions) that the civil liability to return may be excused. For indeed, it was never the Court's intention for Rules 2c and 2d of Madera to be a jurisprudential loophole that would cause the government fiscal leakage and debilitating loss.3 (Emphasis in the original).
Social justice considerations and other bona fide reasons exist in this case. First, it involves officials and employees of the NCIP.7!ᕼdMᗄ7 Some of these officials and employees may possibly be members of indigenous cultural communities.4 Second, the knowledge gained by the recipients of the scholarship program would help in the capacity-building of the NCIP.
Our Constitution specifically recognizes indigenous cultural communities as a vulnerable sector.ℒαwρhi৷ It is a state policy to recognize and promote "the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity and development."5 Several provisions in the Constitution also mention indigenous cultural communities.6 This acknowledges the lack of opportunities for many of their marginalized communities.
As recognized in the ponencia, the scholarship program for postgraduate studies of the officials and employees of the NCIP would "upgrade the quality of the human resource... and ultimately improve the efficiency and effectiveness of NCIP,"7 as the government agency tasked to protect and promote the interests of indigenous cultural communities.8
The NCIP's act of providing a scholarship program for its officials and employees is laudable. It would be inequitable for this Court to require the return of the disallowed amount because in the long run, the skills and competencies gained by the recipients of the NCIP scholarship program will be utilized in further promoting and protecting the indigenous cultural communities it serves.
This, among the other cases penned by the esteemed ponente, puts more spirit into our Constitution's device to erase the injustices we have done in the past.
Without reservations, I concur.
Footnotes
1 G.R. No. 244128, September 8, 2020, < https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66435> [Per J. Caguioa, En Banc].
2 G.R. No. 185806, November 17, 2020, < https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/6672> [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, En Banc].
3 Id.
4 Republic Act No. 8371 (1997), sec. 41 requires that the Chair and the Commissioners of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples be "bona fide members of the ICCs/IPs as certified by his/her tribe."
5 CONST., art. 2, sec. 22 which provides:
SECTION 22. The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity and development.
6 See also CONST., art. VI, sec. 5(2); art. 12, sec. 5; art. 13, secs. 1 and 6; art. 14, secs. 2, 10 and 17; and art. XVI, sec. 12.
ARTICLE VI
The Legislative Department
SECTION 5.
....
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the party list. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector.
ARTICLE XII
National Economy and Patrimony
SECTION 5. The State, subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national development policies and programs, shall protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands to ensure their economic, social, and cultural well-being.
The Congress may provide for the applicability of customary laws governing property rights or relations in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domain.
ARTICLE XIII
Social Justice and Human Rights
SECTION I. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good.
SECTION 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship, whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of other natural resources, including lands of the public domain under lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands.
The State may resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in its own agricultural estates which shall be distributed to them in the manner provided by law.
ARTICLE XIV
Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports
SECTION 2. The State shall:
....
(4) Encourage non-formal, informal, and indigenous learning systems, as well as self-learning, independent, and out-of-school study programs particularly those that respond to community needs;
SECTION 10. Science and technology are essential for national development and progress. The State shall give priority to research and development, invention, innovation, and their utilization; and to science and technology education, training, and services. It shall support indigenous, appropriate, and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, and their application to the country's productive systems and national life.
SECTION 17. The State shall recognize, respect, and protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to preserve and develop their cultures, traditions, and institutions. It shall consider these rights in the formulation of national plans and policies.
ARTICLE XVI
General Provisions
SECTION 12. The Congress may create a consultative body to advise the President on policies affecting indigenous cultural communities, the majority of the members of which shall come from such communities.
7 Ponencia, p. 13.
8 Republic Act No. 8371 (1997).
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
