Goh v. Bayron

CARPIO, J.:

The Case This case is a Petition for Certiorari1 with prayer for the issuance of a preliminary mandatory injunction filed by Alroben J. Goh (Goh) assailing Resolution Nos. 9864 and 9882 issued by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Resolution No. 9864,2 promulgated on 1 April 2014, affirmed the recommendation of the Office of the Deputy Executive Director (ODEDO). The ODEDO found the petition seeking the recall (recall petition) of Mayor Lucilo R. Bayron (Mayor Bayron), the incumbent mayor of Puerto Princesa City, sufficient in form and substance.

However, Resolution No. 9864 suspended all proceedings under the recall petition because the Financial Services Department (FSD) of the COMELEC raised an issue as to the funding of the entire process of recall. The COMELEC Chairman and all COMELEC Commissioners3 signed Resolution No. 9864 without any separate opinion. Resolution No. 9882,4 promulgated on 27 May 2014, suspended any proceeding relative to recall as the recall process, as stated in said Resolution, does not have an appropriation in the General Appropriations Act of 2014 (2014 GAA)5 and the 2014 GAA does not provide the COMELEC with legal authority to commit public funds for the recall process.

Unfike Resolution No. 9864, five COMELEC Commissioners signed Resolution No. 9882 with a comment or a separate opinion.6 The Facts On 17 March 2014, Goh filed before the COMELEC a recall petition, docketed as SPA EM No. 14-004 (RCL),7 against Mayor Bayron due to loss of trust and confidence brought about by "gross violation of pertinent provisions of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, gross violation of pertinent provisions of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials, Incompetence, and other related gross inexcusable negligence/dereliction of duty, intellectual dishonesty and emotional immaturity as Mayor of Puerto Princesa City." On 1 April 2014, the COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 9864. Resolution No. 9864 found the recall petition sufficient in form and substance, but.

suspended the funding of any and all recall elections until the resolution of the funding issue. We reproduce the text of Resolution No. 9864 below: WHEREAS, the Commission is mandated to enforce all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall; WHEREAS, a petition for the recall of Mayor Lucilo Bayron of Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, is pending before this Commission, and has been reviewed by the [ODEDO] and submitted to the en bane through a Memorandum dated 24 March 2014, to wit: After review of the reports/findings of EO Gapulao, the ODEDO recommends to the Commission the issuance of a Resolution certifying to the SUFFICIENCY of the petition for recall of Mayor Lucilo R. Baron [sic] of Puerto Princesa City, Palawan. WHEREAS, Section 75 of the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991 proyides for the source of funding for the conduct of recall elections, to wit: Section 75.

Expenses Incident to Recall Elections. -All expenses incidental to recall elections shall be borne by the COMELEC. For this purpose, there shall be included in the annual General Appropriations Act a contingency fund at the disposal of the COMELEC for the conduct of recall elections.

WHEREAS, Section 31 of COMELEC Resolution No. 7505 decrees that all expenses incident to recall elections shall be borne by the Commission, pursuant to Section 75 of the LGC. WHEREAS, a Memorandum from the Finance Services Department dated 24 March 2014 raised an issue as to the funding of the entire process of recall; NOW THEREFORE, the Commission on Elections, by virtue of the powers vested in it by the Constitution, the Local Government Code, as amended, the Omnibus Election Code, Republic Act No.

9244, and other elections laws, RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to AFFIRM the recommendation of the ODEDO as to the SUFFICIENCY of the Recall Petition filed against Mayor Lucilo R. Bayron of Puerto Princesa City, Palawan. RESOLVED FURTHER, considering that the FSD has raised an issue as to the funding of any and all recall elections, any proceeding in furtherance thereof, including the verification process, is hereby SUSPENDED until the funding issue shall have been resolved. SO ORDERED.8 On 28 April 2014, Mayor Bayron filed with the COMELEC an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and for Clarification9 which prayed for the dismissal of the recall petition for lack of merit.

On 19 May 2014, Goh filed a Comment/Opposition (To the 27 April 2014 Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and for Clarification) with Motion to Lift Suspension10 which prayed for the COMELEC's denial of Mayor Bayron's 27 April 2014 Omnibus Motion, as well as to direct COMELEC's authorized representative to immediately carry out the publication of the recall petition against Mayor Bayron, the verification process, and the recall election of Mayor Bayron. On 27 May 2014, COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 9882, as follows: This refers to the petition for recall against Mayor Lucilo Bayron of the City of Puerto Princesa, Province of Palawan. In Resolution No. 9864, while the Commission en bane affirmed the recommendation of the Office of the Deputy Executive Director for Operations (ODEDO) as to the sufficiency of the Recall Petition, it suspended further proceedings on recall until the funding issue raised by the Finance Services Department shall have been resolved.

The power of recall for loss of confidence is exercised by the registered voters of a local government unit to which the local elective official subject to such recall belongs [Footnote 1 -Sec. 69 of the Local Government Code]. The exercise of this power is subject to the following limitations provided for by law: (a) any elective local official may be the subject of a recall election only once during his term of office for loss of confidence; and (b) [n]o recall shall take place within one (1) year from the date of the official's assumption to office or one (1) year immediately preceding a regular election [Footnote 2 - Section 74 of the Local Government Code]. Because of the cost implications involved, the achievability of pursuing a recall proceeding to its conclusion will depend on the availability of funds at the disposal of the Commission on Elections (the Commission).

The conduct of recall is one of several constitutional mandates of the Commission. Unfortunately, it cannot now proceed with the conduct of recall elections as it does not have an appropriation or legal authority to commit public funds for the purpose. I. All expenses incident to Recall elections shall he for the account of the Commission.

It is important to note that the Local Government Code (LGC) specifically provides for the expenses in the conduct of recall elections, to wit: "SECTION 75. Expenses Incident to Recall Elections. -All expenses incident to recall elections shall be borne by the COMELEC.

for this purpose, there shall be included in the annual General Appropriations Act a contingency fund at the disposal of the COMELEC for the conduct ofrecall election." Hence, the Commission is mandated to shoulder ALL expenses relative to the conduct of recall elections. Expenses in recall elections, unlike the other exercises mandated by the (C]onstitution to be administered by the Commission, is specifically treated in a special law -the LGC.

Section 75 of the LGC likewise requires the annual General Appropriations Act (GAA) to include a contingency fund at the disposal of the Commission for the conduct of recall elections. This leads us to the crucial question: does the 2014 GAA [Footnote 3 - Republic Act No. 10633] include such contingency fund m the Commission's appropriations? II.

The Commission does not have an appropriation or line item budget to serve as a contingency fund for the conduct of recall elections under the 2014 CAA. A careful review of the Commission's budget under the 2014 GAA reveals that it does not have any appropriation or line item budget (line item) to serve as a contingency fund for the conduct of recall elections. While the Commission has a line item for the "Conduct and supervision of elections, referenda, recall votes and plebiscites"

under the Program cate~ory of its 2014 budget in the amount of Phpl.401.501.000.00, the said amount cannot be considered as "an appropriation made by law" as required by the Constitution [Footnote 4 -Art. VI, Section 29 (1)] nor a contingent fund provided under the LGC considering that the said line item is legally intended to finance the basic continuing staff support and administrative operations of the Commission such as salaries of officials and employees as well as essential office maintenance and other operating expenses. As such, it cannot be used for the actual conduct of recall elections.

Under the Revised Administrative Code, an appropriation may be used only for the specific purpose for which they are appropriated, to wit: "SECTION 32. Use of Appropriated Funds. - All moneys appropriated for functions, activities, projects and programs shall be available solely for the specific purposes for which these are appropriated.

" In prior years, including election years such as 2007, 2010 and 2013, the Commission had a line item for the "Conduct and Supervision of Elections and other Political Exercises" under the Program category of its budget.

However, the said line item was never utilized for the actual conduct of any elections or other political exercises including recall elections. Again, the said line item has been consistently spent for the basic continuing staff support and administrative operations of the Commission. This is because on top of the line item for the "Conduct and Supervision of Elections and other Polftical Exercises"

under the Program category, separate line items were provided by Congress for the conduct of the "National and Local Elections," "SK and Barangay Elections" as well as "Overseas Absentee Voting"

under the Locally Funded Projects (Project) category of the Commission's 2007, 2010 and 2013 budget, to wit: Year/GAA Item Budget Under Program Amount Item Budget under Projects Amount 2007 Conduct and Supervision of Elections and Other Political Exercises ₱957,294,000 National and Local Elections ₱5,128,969,000 SK and Barangay Elections ₱2,130,969,000 Overseas Absentee Voting ₱238,421,000 2010 Conduct and Supervision of Elections and Other Political Exercises ₱1, 101,072.000 Automated National and Local Elections ₱5,216,536,000 SK and Barangay Elections ₱3,241,535,000 Overseas Absentee Voting ₱188,086,000 2013 Conduct and Supervision of Elections and Other Political Exercises ₱1,452,752,000 Synchronized National, Local and ARMM Elections ₱4,585,314,000 SK and Barangay Elections ₱1,175,098,000 Overseas Absentee Voting ₱105,036,000 Thus, all expenses relative to the actual conduct of elections were charged against the specific line items for "National and Local Elections,"

"SK and Barangay Elections" and "Overseas Absentee Voting" under the Locally Funded Projects category and not against the separate line item for the "Conduct and Supervision of Elections and other Political Exercises"

under the Program category. This brings us to the relevance of classifying an agency's budget into two major catego.ries - Programs and Projects. Their definitions are found in the 2014 Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing (BESF) submitted by the President to Congress as required by the Constitution [Footnote 5 -Article VII, Sec. 22].

In the Glossary of Terms attached to the 2014 BESF, a "Program" [Footnote 6 - Page 1015] is defined as "a homogenous group of activities necessary for the performance of a major purpose for which a government agency is established, for the basic maintenance of the agency s administrative operations or for the provisions of staff support to agency s administrative operations or for the provisions of staff support to the agency '.s· line functions." On the other hand, "Projects"

are defined as "[s}pecial agency undertakings which are to be carried out within a definite time frame and which are intended to result [in] some pre-determined measures of goods and services." Moreover, in the Organizational Perfom1ance Indicator Framework (OPIF) Reference Guide issued by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) itself, a "Program" is defined as "an integrated group of activities that contribute to a particular continuing objective of a department/agency."

[Footnote 7 - Page 36] Hence, a budget under the category of "Program" is intended to finance the regular day-to-day activities of the Commission for the continuing basic maintenance of its administrative operations. Those activities are regularly undertaken by the Commission regardless of whether or not an election or any political exercises are being administered by the Commission.

With respect to budget under the category of "Project", it is intended to fund the special undertakings or activities of the Commission which are not carried out on a regular day-today basis such as the actual administration of elections and other political exercises including recall elections. Hence, it is illegal to proceed with any activity falling within the definition of "Project" by using the budget intended to finance the activities within the scope of "Program."

The only instance when the Constitution allows the budget intended for "Program" to be used for "Project" is when there is a valid augmentation.

Clearly, thus, the Commission's appropriations in the 2014 GAA does [sic] not include any line item for a contingency fund for the specific purpose of conducting recall elections. In fact, the same has been true for all appropriations of the Commission since 2005. Allocating funds for the purpose of conducting recall elections would not only be illegal under the Supreme Court ruling in Brillantes, Jr. v. Commission on Elections [Footnote 8 - G.R. No. 163193, 15 June 2004], it would likewise, and more importantly, run afoul [of] the prohibition under Article VI, Section 29 (1) of the 1987 Constitution that "No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law."

The same prohibition is reiterated in the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines [Footnote 9 - Presidential Decree No. 1445]. III. Augmentation is Not Possible.

III. a.) There is no Line Item for Recall Elections in the 2014 GAA. Article VI, Section 25 (5) of the Constitution empowers the Chairman of the Commission, along with other heads of the Constitutional Departments and Commissions, to augment any item in the general appropriations law, to wit: "No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations."

Clearly, there are three (3) requisites for the valid exercise of the power to augment, namely: 1. There must be a law authorizing the Chairman to augment; 2. There must be a deficient existing line item in the general appropriations law to be augmented; and 3.

There must be savings on the part of the Commission. While there is a law authorizing the Chairman to augment a deficient appropriation (Sec.

67, General Provisions of the 2014 GAA), there is no existing line item in the Commission's budget for the actual conduct of a recall elections [sic]. Thus, augmentation is not possible in this case. III.

b.) Recall Elections is not one of the Specific Purposes and Priorities for Augmentation under the 2014 GAA. Granting arguendo that the line item for the "Conduct and supervision of elections, referenda, recall votes and plebiscites" under the Program category of the Commission's 2014 budget is also a line item for the conduct of recall elections, still, augmentation cannot be made within the bounds of the law.

Under Sec. 69 of the General Provisions of the 2014 GAA, there are priorities in the use of savings, and [the conduct of] recall elections is not one of them, to wit: "Sec. 69. Priority in the Use of Savings. Tn the use of savings, priority shall he given to the augmentation of the amounts set aside for the payment of compensation, year-end bonus and cash gifi, retirement gratuity, terminal leave benefits, old age pension of veterans and other personnel benefits authorized by law.

and those expenditure items authorized in agency special provisions and in other sections of the General Provisions in this Act." Most importantly, under the 2014 GAA's Special Provisions for the Commission, the Chairman's power to augment is limited to specific purposes only, which purposes do not include recall elections, to wit: "2. Use of Savings.

The COMELEC, through its Chairperson, is authorized to use savings from its appropriations to cover actual deficiencies incurred for the current year and for the following purposes: (i) printing and/ or publication of decisions, resolutions, and training information materials: (ii) repair, maintenance and improvement (?l central and regional offices, facilities and equipment; (iii) purchase of equipment, books, journals and periodicals; (iv) necessary expenses for the employment of temporary, contractual and casual employees; and (v) payment of extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses, representation and transportation allowances, and other authorized benefits of its officials and employees, subject to pertinent budgeting, accounting and auditing rules and regulations. " Notably, the latter restriction aforequoted under the 2014 GAA is new and absent from General Appropriations Acts of previous years.

Hence, in the past, the Chairman could augment ANY deficient items in the Commission's budget. But with the present legislative restrictions, augmentation is limited to certain purposes which, unfortunately, do not include recall elections. IV.

Personal and Criminal liabilities for Violation of the GAA and the Revised Penal Code. Not only will the use of the Commission's current funds for the conduct of recall elections be unconstitutional, it would likewise open the responsible officials to possible personal and criminal liabilities. Section 17 of the General Provisions of the 2014 GAA provides for the use of the current year's appropriation and spells out the liability that will 'be faced by any official or employee who will authorize, allow or permit, as well as those who are negligent in the performance of their duties and functions which resulted in the incurrence of obligations or commitments by the government in violation of the provision of law, to wit: "Sec. 17.

Use of the Current Years Appropriations. All departments, bureaus and offices of the National Government, including Constitutional Offices enjoying fiscal autonomy and sues shall ensure that appropriations in this Act shall be disbursed only for the purposes authorized herein and incurred during the current year. x x x.

Officials and employees who will authorize, allow or permit, as well as those who are negligent in the performance of their duties and functions which resulted in the incurrence of obligations or commitments by the government in violation of this provision shall be personally liable to the government for the full amount obligated or committed, and subject to disciplinary actions in accordance with Section 43, Chapter 5 and Section 80, Chapter 7, Book VI of E.O. No. 292, and to appropriate criminal action under existing laws. " It should be emphasized that mere utilization of a public fund to any public use other than for which such fund was appropriated by law is considered as a criminal act under Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code even if no damage has resulted to the public, to wit: "Article 220.

Illegal use of public funds or property. - Any public officer who shall apply any public fund or property under his administration to any public use other than for which such fund or property were appropriated by law or ordinance shall suffer the penalty of prision correcciona/ in its minimum period or a fine ranging from one-half to the total of the sum misapplied, if by reason of such misapplication, any damages or embarassment shall have resulted to the public service. In either case, the offender shall also suffer the penalty of temporary special disqualification.

If no damage or embarrassment to the public service has resulted, the penally shall be a fine from 5 to 50 per cent of the sum misapplied." V. The Conduct of Recall Elections may adversely affect the Commission's preparation's [sic] for [the} 2016 National and Local Elections. It should be noted that the instant petition is not the only move for the conduct of recall elections.

In fact, another petition is pending for the conduct of recall in the Province of Bulacan. Thus, should the Commission allow the present petition to push through, it is equivalent to opening the floodgates for numerous other recall petitions which will result in multiple counts of violation of the existing appropriation laws. Furthermore, the conduct of several recall elections may adversely affect the ongoing preparations for the conduct of the May 9, 2016 National, Local and ARMM Elections, which the Commission has commenced as far back as December of 2013.

VI. The only Solution is the Enaclment of a Law that will Appropriate Funds for the Conduct of Recall Elections. One solution to the Commission's predicament on recall is the inclusion in the 2015 GAA of a contingency fund that may be used by the Commiss.ion for the conduct of recall elections pursuant to Section 75 of the LGC.

Hence, in the Commission's budget proposal for 2015, the Commission included a budget in the amount of Php321,570,000.00 for possible recall elections in 2015 considering that recall elections can still be conducted up to May of 2015. An alternative solution is for persons interested in pursuing recall elections to adopt actions that may lead to the passage by Congress of a supplemental (special) appropriations law for the FY 2014 for the conduct of recall elections. The same may be suppo1ted by the Commission by certifying that such funds, which are presently lacking, are necessary to defray expenses for the holding of recall elections, pursuant l.o Section 11, Art. IX(C) of the Constitution.

Relative to this matter, it is unwise to request additional funding from the DBM. Again, Section 29(1), Article VI of the Constitution is clear that the expenditure of public funds must be pursuant to an appropriation made by law. Since only Congress can enact laws [Footnote 10 - Section l, Article VI, Philippine Constitution], the DBM has no power to set aside funds, more so allot to the Commission said funds, for an item of expenditure that is not provided in the Commission's appropriations in the 2014 GAA.

It is likewise unwise for the Commission to request the partial use of the One Billion Peso (PH₱1,000,000,000.00) Contingent Fund under the 2014 GAA [Footnote 11 - Page 853]. True, Special Provision No. 1 does say that the contingent fund may be used for "new and/or urgent projects and activities that need to be implemented during the year." However, it also says that such fund "shall be administered by the office of the President."

Given the circumstances, not a few may interpret the Commission's request to use such fund from the Office of the President as an affront to the independence of this Commission. This may in turn lead some quarters to view any recall process funded by the said Contingent Fund as tainted and biased. Going through with this proposal would do more harm than good.

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, not to continue with any proceedings relative to recall as it does not have a line item budget or legal authority to commit public funds for the purpose. Hence, until a law is passed by Congress appropriating funds for recall elections - either by approving the Commission's budget proposal for FY 2015 or through a supplemental (special) appropriations for FY 2014 - any proceeding relative t9 the instant petition for recall should be suspended further. RESOLVED, further, that this Resolution shall be applied consistently to all other petitions for recall now pending or to be pursued by interested parties subsequent hereto. SO ORDERED.11 Resolution No. 9882 was signed, without comment or separate opinion, by Chairman Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr. and Commissioner Elias R. Yusoph. Commissioner Lucenito N. Tagle voted in favor of the resolution and filed a comment.12 Commissioner Christian Robert S. Lim concurred in the resolution, with the comment that "malversation should be under Article 217 not 220 [of the Revised Penal Code]."13 Commissioners Maria Gracia Cielo M. Padaca,14 AI A. Parreno,15 and Luie Tito F. Guia16 wrote separate options. Commissioner Tagle stated that "in order for the Commission to effectively undertake actions relative to recall petitions, First, the budget proposal to Congress for the FY 201 5 should contain a specific line item appropriated for the funding of the conduct of recall elections; or Second, if feasible, we can request a supplemental budget from Congress for the FY 2014 to specifically answer for the funding of recall proceedings."17 Commissioner Padaca called for a holistic look of the GAA. She submitted that "the allocation for the Commission in the GAA is primarily geared toward our Constitutional mandate, that is, the enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiat.ive, referendum, and recall xx x."18 Therefore, the interpretation of the provisions of the GAA should be read with the intent to pursue COMELEC's mandate. Commissioner Padaca further pointed out that the COMELEC was "able to conduct special elections in the first district of !locos Sur in 2011, Zam bales in 2012, and a plebiscite for the creation of Davao Occidental in 2013, all of which lack a specific line item in the applicable GAA. The lack of a specific appropriation or line item in the GAA did not deter [COMELEC] from conducting and supervising an electoral exercise that was legally called upon by the people."19 However, Commissioner Padaca recognized the limitations set by Section 2 of the 2014 GAA20 on the COMELEC's use of its savings. In his separate opinion, Commissioner Parreno agreed with the factual findings of the FSD of the COMELEC and the Office of the Chairman that the budget for the conduct of recall elections was not in the 2014 GAA. He quoted from the 24 March 2014 Memorandum to the FSD which stated that the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) did not include a provision for expenses for recall elections for Fiscal Years 2013 and 2014. The memorandum stated that: Please be informed that for the FY 2013 and 2014, there is no provision made by the DBM for any expenses for the recall elections. A provision was made only in the previous years in the total amount of ₱1,000,000.00. What was provided for in our FY 2014 budget was the regular expenses for the election activities - regular salaries of field employees and the corresponding expenses for the regular activities of our office.21 The Office of the Chairman, on the other hand, submits the COMELEC's annual budget for the COMELEC En Bane's approval and directs and supervises the operations and internal administrations of the COMELEC. Commissioner Guia states that the majority opinion suggests that recall elections can only be funded through a supplemental budget law. He opines that the majority adopts a strict interpretation of the budget law when it states that there is no 1ine item for the conduct of recall elections in the 2014 GAA. Commissioner Guia proposes a liberal approach: that the 2014 GAA should be construed as merely failing to provide sufficient funds for the actual conduct of recall elections, and not as preventing COMELEC from exercising its constitutional mandate of conducting recall elections. Commissioner Guia's liberal approach to interpreting the budget law makes the remedy of funding recall elections by way of augmenting an existing line item from savings a theoretical possibility. Commissioner Guia, however, recognizes that the GAA's Sec. 69 of the General Provisions and Sec. 2 of the Special Provisions for the COMELEC22 limit the items that can be funded from the COMELEC's savings. He suggests that curative legislation be made to enable COMELEC to perform its constitutional mandate. Goh filed the present Petition on 6 June 2014. The Issues In his Grounds for filing the Petition, Goh stated: 26. Petitioner respectfully moves for (a) the PARTIAL ANNULMENT and REVERSAL of Resolution No. 9864, insofar as the same directed the suspension of further action on the instant Recall Petition, and (b) the ANNULMENT AND REVERSAL of Resolution No. 9882, on the ground that in their issuance, the respondent Commission committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it failed to rule that: I. THE 2014 GAA PROVIDES FOR AN APPROPRIATION OR LINE ITEM BUDGET TO SERVE AS A CONTINGENCY FUND FOR THE CONDUCT OF RECALL ELECTIONS. II. THE RESPONDENT COMMISSION MAY LAWFULLY AUGMENT ANY SUPPOSED INSUFFICIENCY IN FUNDING FOR THE CONDUCT OF RECALL ELECTIONS BY UTILIZING ITS SAVINGS. III. THE PROPER, ORDERLY AND LAWFUL EXERCISE OF THE PROCESS OF RECALL IS WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE POWER AND AUTHORITY OF THE RESPONDENT COMMISSION. IV. THE FACTUAL BACKDROP OF THIS CASE DOES NOT WARRANT NOR JUSTIFY THE DEFERMENT OF ALL PROCEEDINGS ON RECALL PETITJONS. 27. Petitioner respectfully submits that an examination of the merits of this case, as well as the applicable laws and entrenched legal precepts on the legal issues presented, will clearly establish an undeniable basis for the reversal of the questioned Resolution Nos. 9864 and 9882. 28. Indeed, notwithstanding its finding that the Recall Petition filed by Petitioner Goh is sufficient in form and substance, Respondent Commission nevertheless suspended the holding of a recall election supposedly through Jack of funding. Petitioner respectfully submits that the same is a grave abdication and wanton betrayal of the Constitutional mandate of the Respondent Commission and a grievous violation of the sovereign power of the people. What the Resolution Nos. 9864 and 9882 have given with one hand (the affirmation of the sufficiency of the Recall Petition), they have taken away with the other (the funding issue, later claimed the issue of lack funding).23 In his comment, Mayor Bayron provided the following grounds for the dismissal of the petition: I. THE 2014 GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT DOES NOT CARRY ANY SPECIFIC PARTICULAR ITEM FOR THE CONDUCT OF RECALL ELECTIONS IN THE ClTY OF PUERTO PRINCESA, PROVINCE OF PALAWAN OR ELSEWHERE; A. The "power of the purse" belongs to the Congress and not with the Commission on Elections; B. Fiscal autc.momy of the Commission on Elections operates within the parameters of the Constitution; C. There is no particular item for the Conduct of Recall Elections in which to apply the provision on budget augmentation; [and] D: ft is the Commission, in line with the present budget, that has the authority to determine the presence and possibility of augmentation. II. PROGRAM AND PROJECT HAVE BEEN CLEARLY DIFFERENTIATED BY THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; III. THE 2014 GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT PRESENTS A SPECIAL PROVISION WHICH WAS ABSENT IN THE PREVIOUS GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT THEREBY FURTHER LIMITING THE COMELEC'S EXERCISE OF AUGMENTATION; IV. BUDGET CAN STILL BE ALLOCATED BY CONGRESS THROUGH THE ENACTMENT AND PASSAGE OF A 2014 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET OR THROUGH THE 2015 GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT; V. GOVERNMENT FUNDS SHOULD NOT BE SPENT TO SUPPORT ILLEGAL AND PREMATURE INSTITUTION OF RECALL; [and] VI. POLITICS IS A PRACTICAL MATTER, AND POLITICAL QUESTIONS MUST BE DEALT WITH REALISTICALLY.24 The COMELEC, through the Office of the Solicitor General, argued that; I. RESPONDENT COMELEC EN BANC DID NOT COMMIT GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN SUSPENDING PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO THE RECALL PETITION FILED AGAINST RESPONDENT MAYOR LUCTLO R. BAYRON OF PUERTO PRINCESA CITY. A. The 2014 GAA does not provide for an appropriation or line item to serve as contingency fund for the conduct of Recall Elections. B. Any activity falling within the definition of a "Project," such as Recall Elections, cannot validly proceed by using the budget intended to finance the activities within the scope of "Programs." C. Respondent COMELEC may not lawfully utilize its savings to augment any insufficiency in the funding for recall elections. II. THE RECALL ELECTIONS BEING SOUGHT BY PETITIONER MAY PROCEED ONLY IF A LAW IS ENACTED APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR. III. PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY MANDATORY INJUNCTION.25 The Court's Ruling We grant the petition. We hold that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing Resolution Nos. 9864 and 9882.1âwphi1 The 2014 GAA provides the line item appropriation to allow the COMELEC to perform its constitutional mandate of conducting recall elections. There is no need for supplemental legislation to authorize the COMELEC to conduct recall elections for 2014. The COMELEC's Fiscal Autonomy The 1987 Constitution expressly provides the COMELEC with the power to "[e]nforce and administer alE laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall."26 The 1987 Constitution not only guaranteed the COMELEC's fiscal autonomy,27 but also granted its head, as authorized by law, to augment items in its appropriations from its savings.28 The 2014 GAA provides such authorization to the COMELEC Chairman.29 The COMELEC's budget in the 2014 CAA Goh asserts that the 2014 GAA provided COMELEC with an appropriation for the conduct of recall elections in the total amount of Ph₱2,735,321,000. As evidence, Goh reproduced the COMELEC's budget allocation in the 2014 GAA: PS MODE CO TOTAL PROGRAMS 1,937,544,000 450,937,000 2,388,481,000 General Administration & Support 454,457,000 276,749,000 731,206,000 Operations 1,483,087,000 174,184,000 1,657,275,000 PROJECTS 500,000 120,816,000 225,524,000 346,840,000 Localty-funded Projects 500,000 120,816,000 225,524,000 346,,840,000 TOTAL NEW APPRO. 1,938,044,000 571,753,000 225,524,000 2,735,321,00030 Goh further pointed out that the COMELEC has Ph₱1,483,087,000 appropriated under Operations, and that the PhP 1,401,501,000 for current operating expenditure is allocated per region as follows: National Capital Region 74,356,000 Region I - Ilocos 97,350,000 Region II - Cagayan Valley 69,302,000 Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR) 63,120,000 Region III - Central Luzon 1 I 2,896,000 Region IV-A - CALABARZON 183,390,000 Region V - Bicol 92,944,000 Region VI - Western Visayas 23,252,000 Region VII - Central Visayas 108,093,000 Region VIII - Eastern Visayas 106,144,000 Region IX - Zamboanga Peninsula 56,636,000 Region X- Northern Mindanao 76,864,000 Region XI - Davao 51,639,000 Region XII - SOCCSKSARGEN 44,982,000 Region XIII - CARAGA 59,481,000 Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) 81,052,00031 Goh further states that COMELEC's personnel themselves admitted to the existence of a contingency fund for the lawful conduct of recall elections. Atty. Maria Lea R. Alarkon, Acting Director III of the COMELEC's FSD, during the 3 September 2013 budget hearing before the Senate's Subcommittee A of the Committee on Finance, stated: Your Honors, for the specifics of our MFO [Major Final Output] budget, x x x conduct and supervision of elections, referenda, recall and plebiscites, 1,527,815,000; x x x.32 (Emphasis supplied) Goh also cited an online news article which quoted COMELEC spokesperson James Jimenez saying that "lack of budget (should) not (be) an issue. xx x We always have a 'standby' budget for recall, plebiscite, etc." and adding that the successful holding of any recall elections, referendum or plebiscite is the fundamental mandate of the COMELEC.33 Finally, Goh presented a letter dated 28 May 2014 from Rep. Isidro T. Ungab, Chairman of the House of Representatives' Committee on Appropriations, addressed to Hon. Douglas S. Hagedorn, Representative of the Third District of Palawan. The letter stated that "[t]he FY 2014 budget of the COMELEC as authorized in the FY 2014 General Appropriations Act amounts to ₱2,735,321,000, of which ₱1,401,501,000 is appropriated for the conduct and supervision of elections, referenda, recall votes and plebiscites."34 The COMELEC, through the Solicitor General, classifies Goh's assertions as misleading. To illustrate the lack of appropriation or line item for a contingency fund for the conduct of recall elections in the 2014 GAA, the COMELEC countered: The amount of PhP 1,483,087,000 referred to by [Goh] allegedly for the conduct and supervision of election, referenda, recall votes and plebiscites, actually refers to operating expenditures for "Personnel Services," under the program "Regulation of Elections." The amount of PhP 1,401,501,000, on the other hand, is the total amount allotted for "Personnel Services" (Ph₱1,360,975,000) and "Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses" (Ph₱40,526,000) for Regional Allocation.35 The COMELEC reiterated pertinent portions of Resolution No. 9882,36 thus: x x x While x x x the Commission has a line item for the "Conduct and supervision of elections, referenda, recall votes and plebiscites" under the Program category of its 2014 budget in the amount of Php 1,401,501,000.00, the said amount cannot be considered as "an appropriation made by law" as required by the Constitution [Footnote 17 -Art. VI, Section 29 (I)] nor a contingent fund provided under the LGC considering that the said line item is legally intended to finance the basic continuing staff support and administrative operations of the Commission such as salaries of officials and employees as well as essential office maintenance and other operating expenses. As such, it carmot be used for the actual conduct of recall elections. x x x x In prior years, including election years such as 2007, 2010 and 2013, the Commission had a line item for the "Conduct and Supervision of Elections and other Political Exercises" under the Program category of its budget. However, the said line item was never utilized for the actual conduct of any elections or other political exercises including recall elections. Again, the said line item has been consistently spent for the basic continuing staff support and administrative operations of the Commission. This is because the top of the line item for the "Conduct and Supervision of Elections and other Political Exercises" under the Program category, separate line items were provided by Congress for the conduct of the "National and Local Elections," "SK and Barangay Elections" as well as "Overseas Absentee Voting" under the Locally Funded Projects (Project) category of the Commission's 2007, 2010 and 2013 budget, to wit: Year/GAA Item Budget Under Program Amount Item Budget under Projects Amount 2007 Conduct and Supervision of Elections and Other Political Exercises ₱957,294,000 National and Local Elections ₱5,128,969,000 SK and Barangay Elections ₱2,130,969,000 Overseas Absentee Voting ₱238,421,000 2010 Conduct and Supervision of Elections and Other Political Exercises ₱1,101,072.000 Automated National and Local Elections ₱5,216,536,000 SK and Barangay Elections ₱3,241,535,000 Overseas Absentee Voting ₱188,086,000 2013 Conduct and Supervision of Elections and Other Political Exercises ₱1,452,752,000 Synchronized National, Local and ARMM Elections ₱4,585,314,000 SK and Barangay Elections ₱1,175,098,000 Overseas Absentee Voting ₱105,036,000 Despite Resolution No. 9882's statement about the alleged failure of the 2014 GAA to provide for a line item appropriation for the conduct of recall elections, we hold that the 2014 GAA actually expressly provides for a line item appropriation for the conduct and supervision of recall elections. This is found in the Programs category of its 2014 budget, which the COMELEC admits in its Resolution No. 9882 is a "line item for the 'Conduct and supervision of elections, referenda, recall votes and plebiscites.'" In addition, one of the specific constitutional functions of the COMELEC is to conduct recall elections. When the COMELEC receives a budgetary appropriation for its "Current Operating Expenditures," such appropriation includes expenditures to carry out its constitutional functions, including the conduct of recall elections. Thus, in Socrates v. COMELEC37 (Socrates), recall elections were conducted even without a specific appropriation for recall elections in the 2002 GAA. In Socrates, the COMELEC conducted recall elections for mayor of Puerto Princesa City, Palawan on 24 September 2002. At the time, the COMELEC found no reason to raise any concern as to the funding of the 24 September 2002 recall elections. The COMELEC's budget in the 2002 GAA provided for the following: New Appropriations, by Program / Project Current Operating Expenditures Personal Services