THE VETERANS FEDERA FEDER ATION OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. Hon. ANGELO T. REYES; and Hon. EDGARDO E. BATENGA G. R. No. 155027, Fe!"a!# 2$, 200% FA&TS'
The Veterans Federation of the Philippines was created under Rep. Act No. 2640. The DND ecretar! issued the assailed DND Depart"ent #ircular No. 04 entitled$ %Further &"ple"entin' the Provisions of ections ( and 2 of Repu)lic Act No. 2640. Pursu Pursuan antt to the assa assaile iled d #ircu #ircular lar$$ the the DND DND sou'h sou'htt to audit audit VFP VFP. The The VFP VFP co"plained a)out the alle'ed )roadness of the scope of the "ana'e"ent audit and re*uested its suspension. This was denied. VFP ar'ued that it is a private private non+'ov non+'overn" ern"ent ent or'ani, or'ani,atio ation. n. To support support its ar'u"ent$ it contended- (/ that it does not possess the ele"ents of a pu)lic office$ particularl! the possessiondele'ation of a portion of soverei'n power of 'overn"ent1 2/ that its funds are not pu)lic funds )ecause it receives no 'overn"ent funds as its funds co"e fro" "e")ership dues$ and the lease rentals1 / that it retains its essential character character as a private$ civilian federation federation of veterans veterans voluntaril! for"ed )! the veterans the"selves where "e")ership is voluntar! and is 'overned )! the 3a)or #ode and law1 4/ that the Ad"inistrative #ode of (5 does not provide that the VFP is an attached a'enc!1 and 7/ that the D89 declared that the VFP is a non+'overn"ent or'ani,ation or'ani,ation and issued a certificate certificate that the VFP has not )een a direct recipient of an! funds released )! the D89. ISS(ES'
#entral &ssue- :hether or not the Veterans Federation of the Philippines is a private corporation. •
•
•
:hether or not the challen'ed depart"ent circular passed in the valid e;ercise of the respondent ecretar!
1
R(LING'
The #ourt ruled the followin'- (/ assailed DND Depart"ent #ircular No. 04 does not supplant nor "odif! and is$ on the contrar!$ perfectl! in consonance with Rep. Act No. 26401 and 2/ that VFP )* a +")- -o!+o!a)on . As such$ it can )e placed under the control and supervision of the ecretar! of National Defense$ who conse*uentl! has the power to conduct an e;tensive "ana'e"ent audit of VFP. The functions of the VFP are executive functions
The dele'ation to the individual of so"e of the soverei'n functions of 'overn"ent is %=t>he "ost i"portant characteristic% in deter"inin' whether a position is a pu)lic office or not. &n several cases$ the #ourt has dealt with this issue which deals with activities not i""ediatel! apparent to )e soverei'n functions. &t upheld the pu)lic soverei'n nature of operations needed either to +!o/oe *o-)a "*)-e or to sti"ulate +a!)o)*en)/en* and oe o -o"n!# . &n the case at )ar$ the functions of the VFP fall within the cate'or! of soverei'n functions. The protection of the interests of war veterans is not onl! "eant to pro"ote social ?ustice$ )ut is also intended to reward patriotis". The functions of the VFP are e;ecutive functions to provide i""ediate and ade*uate care$ )enefits and other for"s of assistance to war veterans and veterans of "ilitar! ca"pai'ns$ their survivin' spouses and orphans. VFP funds are public funds
The fact that no )ud'etar! appropriations have )een released to the VFP )! the D89 does not prove that it is a private corporation. Assu"in' that the D89 )elieved that the VFP is a private corporation$ it is an accepted principle that the erroneous application of the law )! pu)lic officers does not )ar a su)se*uent correct application of the law. The funds in the hands of the VFP fro" whatever source are pu)lic funds$ and can )e used onl! for pu)lic purposes. As the #ourt ruled in Repu)lic v. #@#@FD$ %e/ven if the "one! is allocated for a special purpose and raised )! special "eans$ it is still pu)lic in character.% There is nothin' wron'$ whether le'all! or "orall!$ fro" raisin' revenues throu'h non+traditional "ethods.
2
Membership of the VFP is not the individual membership of the affiliate organizations
VFP clai"s that the ecretar! of National Defense %historicall! did not indul'e in the direct or B"icro"ana'e"ent< of the VFP. This reliance of petitioner on what has %historicall!% )een done is erroneous$ since laws are not repealed )! disuse$ custo"$ or practice to the contrar!. Neither is the civilian nature of VFP relevant )ecause the #onstitution does not contain an! prohi)ition a'ainst the 'rant of control andor supervision to the ecretar! of National Defense over a civilian or'ani,ation. The Administrative Code did not repeal or modify RA !"#
The Ad"inistrative #ode$ )! 'ivin' definitions of the various entities covered )! it$ acCnowled'es that its enu"eration is not e;clusive. The Ad"inistrative #ode could not )e said to have repealed nor enor"ousl! "odified RA 2640 )! i"plication$ as such repeal or enor"ous "odification )! i"plication is not favored in statutor! construction. $%M opinion is not persuasive
VFP
The #ourt has defined the power of control as %the power of an officer to alter or "odif! or nullif! or set aside what a su)ordinate has done in the perfor"ance of his duties and to su)stitute the ?ud'"ent of the for"er to that of the latter.% The power of supervision$ on the other hand$ "eans %overseein'$ or the power or authorit! of an officer to see that su)ordinate officers perfor" their duties.% ince the #ourt has also previousl! deter"ined that VFP funds are pu)lic funds$ there is liCewise no reason to declare this provision invalid. avin' in their possession pu)lic funds$ the officers of the VFP$ especiall! its fiscal officers$ "ust indeed share in the fiscal responsi)ilit! to the 'reatest e;tent.
