G.R. No. 230818 , February 14, 2023
EFRAIM C. GENUINO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 244540] RENE C. FIGUEROA, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The case involves consolidated petitions concerning the audit jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit (COA) over the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR). Prior to this case, the Court, in its 2021 Genuino Decision and 2021 Figueroa Decision, held that COA’s audit jurisdiction over PAGCOR was limited only to the 5% franchise tax and the Government’s 50% share as stated in Section 15 of Presidential Decree No. 1869 (the PAGCOR Charter). This was based on the presumption of constitutionality of Section 15, as it had not been amended, repealed, or declared unconstitutional. The present ponencia overturns those prior rulings.

ISSUE

The primary issue addressed in the concurring and dissenting opinion is whether the new doctrine—that COA has expansive audit jurisdiction over all funds of PAGCOR, regardless of source—should be applied retroactively to affect the specific disbursements and liabilities of the petitioners in these cases.

RULING

Justice Kho, Jr., in his Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, concurs with the ponencia on two points: (1) that Section 15 of the PAGCOR Charter has been impliedly repealed by the 1987 Constitution , specifically Article IX-D, Sections 2 and 3, which grants COA broad audit power over all funds of government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters like PAGCOR; and (2) that this new doctrine on COA’s expansive audit jurisdiction should be applied prospectively, following the rule in People v. Jabinal, meaning it should not apply to parties who had relied on the old doctrine and acted in good faith thereon.
However, Justice Kho dissents from the ponencia’s determination of the propriety of the disallowance and the petitioners’ liabilities. He argues that since the new doctrine is to be applied prospectively, the reversal of the 2021 Genuino Decision should not be applied to the specific disbursements made in these cases. Consequently, the Court should not examine the propriety of those disbursements or the liabilities of the approving/certifying officers and recipients. He bases this on the principle of prospectivity, emphasizing fairness and justice, and cites jurisprudence (Madera v. COA) stating that a payee’s good faith is presumed when there is a reasonable textual interpretation supporting the legality of the disbursement at the time it was made.
Justice Kho votes to: (1) partly grant COA’s Motion for Reconsideration in G.R. No. 230818 regarding its audit jurisdiction; (2) grant petitioner Figueroa’s petition in G.R. No. 244540; and (3) set aside the specific COA Decisions that disallowed the subject transactions.