Scribd
Upload
419 views1 page

MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

The Commission on Audit (COA) disallowed certain additional expenses incurred by the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) in its agreement with a consulting firm. COA argued that a 5% contingency ceiling applied under government guidelines. MIAA claimed the agreement was equivalent to an executive agreement subject to a 10% ceiling practiced by international institutions. While the Court generally defers to COA, it found COA gravely abused its discretion in this case and reversed the decision, finding the 10% ceiling applied instead.

Uploaded by

Alljun Serenado
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
419 views1 page

MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

The Commission on Audit (COA) disallowed certain additional expenses incurred by the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) in its agreement with a consulting firm. COA argued that a 5% contingency ceiling applied under government guidelines. MIAA claimed the agreement was equivalent to an executive agreement subject to a 10% ceiling practiced by international institutions. While the Court generally defers to COA, it found COA gravely abused its discretion in this case and reversed the decision, finding the 10% ceiling applied instead.

Uploaded by

Alljun Serenado
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY VS.

COMMISSION ON AUDIT
G.R. No. 218388. October 15, 2019.
EN BANC, BERSAMIN, C.J

COA decisions and resolutions; when subject to the Court’s review

The Court may only intervene to correct an assailed decision or resolution when the COA, in
the exercise of its authority, acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse
of discretion.

COA disallowed certain additional expenses pursuant to the Agreement for Consulting
Services between MIAA and Aeroports de Paris Japan Airport Consultants, Inc. Consortium
(APJAC.

COA argues that NEDA guidelines provide that a 5% contingency ceiling applies in the
absence of any provision in the agreement that the Philippine laws should not apply. The
agreement in this case was silent with regards to such matters.

MIAA, citing Abaya v. Ebdane contends that the agreement was equivalent to an executive
agreement and as such is subject to a 10% contingency ceiling which is the normal practice
of international financial institutions rather than the 5% ceiling under the NEDA guidelines.

Is the assailed COA decision subject to the Court’s review?

Generally, deference is given by the Court to the decisions and resolutions of the COA as a
matter of general policy, not only on the basis of the doctrine of separation of powers but
also in recognition of the COA's expertise on the laws it was entrusted to enforce.

Further, under the 1987 Constitution, COA has been granted exclusive authority to disallow
irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures or uses of
government funds and properties.

However, upon review of the records, the Court found and held that the COA gravely
abused its discretion in giving said decision and thus found it proper to review and reverse
said decision.

You might also like