Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • CSC Vs DBM

    Uploaded by

    CJ Millena
    12 views1 page
    The Civil Service Commission (CSC) filed a petition for mandamus against the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) to compel the release of the CSC's remaining budget balance for fiscal year 2002. The DBM withheld a portion of the CSC's budget based on a "no report, no release" policy. The DBM argued the CSC did not exhaust administrative remedies by seeking clarification from the DBM secretary first. The Supreme Court ruled that no law required the CSC to take such an administrative step first. The Court also found the CSC properly filed directly with the Supreme Court rather than a lower court, as the case involved the constitutional concept of fiscal autonomy which only the Supreme Court could decide

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    CSC vs DBM

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Civil Service Commission (CSC) filed a petition for mandamus against the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) to compel the release of the CSC's remaining budget balance for fiscal year 2002. The DBM withheld a portion of the CSC's budget based on a "no report, no release" policy. The DBM argued the CSC did not exhaust administrative remedies by seeking clarification from the DBM secretary first. The Supreme Court ruled that no law required the CSC to take such an administrative step first. The Court also found the CSC properly filed directly with the Supreme Court rather than a lower court, as the case involved the constitutional concept of fiscal autonomy which only the Supreme Court could decide

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    12 views1 page

    CSC Vs DBM

    Uploaded by

    CJ Millena
    The Civil Service Commission (CSC) filed a petition for mandamus against the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) to compel the release of the CSC's remaining budget balance for fiscal year 2002. The DBM withheld a portion of the CSC's budget based on a "no report, no release" policy. The DBM argued the CSC did not exhaust administrative remedies by seeking clarification from the DBM secretary first. The Supreme Court ruled that no law required the CSC to take such an administrative step first. The Court also found the CSC properly filed directly with the Supreme Court rather than a lower court, as the case involved the constitutional concept of fiscal autonomy which only the Supreme Court could decide

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    CSC vs DBM

    Facts
    The Civil Service Commission (CSC) presents this petition for mandamus to compel the Dept. of
    Budget and Management (DBM) to release the balance of its budget for the fiscal year of 2002. It also
    seeks a determination by this court of the extent of the constitutional concept of fiscal autonomy.

    The total allocations for the CSC by the General Appropriations Act of 2002 is P285,660,790.44 but
    only P279,843,398.14 have been released to it, leaving a withheld balance of P5,807,392.30.
    The balance was intentionally withheld on the basis of the no report, no release policy which provides
    that allocations for agencies will be withheld pending their submission of documents listed in the
    National Budget Circular No. 478.

    Respondent opposes the petition on the basis of the procedural ground of non-exhaustion of
    administrative remedies, as the CSC could have first clarified the extent of fiscal autonomy with the
    DBM secretary. Respondent also invokes the hierarchy of courts, and points out that there is no
    exception and compelling reason to justify the direct filing of the petition with the Supreme Court
    instead of the trial court.

    Issues
    1. w/n the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies in this case. NO
    2. w/n the filing of this petition violated the hierarchy of courts principle. NO

    Held

    Ratio
    1. The rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies invoked by respondent applies only where there
    is an express legal provision requiring such administrative step as a condition precedent to taking
    action in court. As petitioner is not mandated by any law to seek clarification from the Secretary of
    Budget and Management prior to filing the present action, its failure to do so does not call for the
    application of the rule.

    2. As for the rule on hierarchy of courts, it is not absolute. A direct invocation of this Court's original
    jurisdiction may be allowed where there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and
    specifically set out in the petition. Petitioner justifies its direct filing of the petition with this Court as the
    matter involves the concept of fiscal autonomy granted to [it] as well as other constitutional bodies, a
    legal question not heretofore determined and which only the Honorable Supreme Court can decide
    with authority and finality. To this Court, such justification suffices for allowing the petition.

    You might also like