RTC rules Gov has authority to go into service contracts

The Regional Trial Court upheld the governor's authority to enter into a contract involving monetary obligations even without authority from the Provincial Board for as long as there is already an appropriation ordinance enacted before.

RTC Judge Geraldine Faith Econg ruled that Governor Gwen Garcia was correct over that of the Commission on Audit in her interpretation of the provisions of the Local Government Code and of the Government Procurement Reform Act.

Judge Econg ruled that Garcia no longer needed to get another authorization from the PB through a resolution if the PB already authorized it before through the appropriation ordinance.

While the RTC ruled in favor of Garcia, it however dropped from the case the Provincial Board, which has no legal personality to sue or to be sued, as stipulated in the Rules of Court.

Garcia filed in court a petition for declaratory relief against COA director Delfin Aguilar, local cluster director Helen Hilayo and legal officer Roy Ursal and the Provincial Board.

The case started when the COA released its financial audit report of the Province of Cebu for the period ending December 2004.

The COA report found some contracts-amounting to over P102 million-including janitorial services and hiring of security guards from Spectrum Security Agency, which Garcia had entered into without authority from the PB.

The report also said Garcia violated Section 22 of Republic Act 7160 (the Local Government Code) and recommended that she should follow the law's provisions in entering contracts.

However, Garcia countered that she no longer needs a separate authority from the PB because it already approved an appropriation ordinance allowing the expenses for those contracted services.

Garcia argued that COA has misinterpreted the provision of RA 7160, which allows exceptions, including that of Sections 306 and 246 of the same law, and Section 37 of RA 9184 (the Government Procurement Act).

The governor insisted that the Capitol contracts for janitorial and security services fall in the laws' exceptions and not in the general rule.

But COA officials argued that the sections cited could not be considered as exceptions to the general rule, saying that section 346 refers to the disbursements, which must be in accord with the appropriation ordinance.

They argued that what is exempted from prior approval is the implementation of appropriations, specifically the disbursement of funds.

Some PB members, who were among the respondents in the case, moved for the dismissal of the case for declaratory relief.

They argued that the case for declaratory relief was not correct because Garcia already committed a breach of the law and, under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a declaratory relief can be filed only before a breach is committed.

But Judge Econg ruled that whether or not the governor breached a law is not the question in the case. "This court therefore hesitates to dismiss this instant case because the interpretation of laws involved will affect the future transactions of petitioner," she said.

After the case was resolved in Garcia's favor, the governor said she was vindicated of her earlier stand against PB authorization for some contracts that were covered already with appropriation ordinances.

She said that, in conference with COA officials a few nights ago, she reminded them to "try to take a look at the wider perspective, which includes the public good" while they are in the confines of their offices.

"We can see the rationale of the law here because you can just imagine the paralysis that would result in a situation where the local chief executive is politically at odds with the council or with the PB," she said.

The governor said that if in implementing each project the local chief executive needs authority from the board to enter into a contract, then no project could ever be done except for "lots of grandstanding and media copy."

Garcia said she did not mind going against certain COA rules and regulations while performing her duties for as long as her action has strong legal basis.

The COA, she said, had promised to pull out its observations of the Capitol's 2005 budget and include them instead in the preceding year's observations. - Fred P. Languido and Cristina C. Birondo