Scribd
Upload
732 views1 page

Degamo Case Admin Law Digest

The Supreme Court ruled that an undersecretary can invoke the qualified political agency doctrine to withdraw a Special Allotment Release Order (SARO). The undersecretary, Mario L. Relampagos, was acting on behalf of the Budget Secretary based on instructions from the President to withdraw the SARO that did not comply with funding guidelines. As a department secretary can act on behalf of the President in their department, Relampagos properly exercised authority to withdraw the SARO. The Court also found no evidence Relampagos acted in bad faith, dismissing the petition against him.

Uploaded by

Rhea Mae A. Sibala
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
732 views1 page

Degamo Case Admin Law Digest

The Supreme Court ruled that an undersecretary can invoke the qualified political agency doctrine to withdraw a Special Allotment Release Order (SARO). The undersecretary, Mario L. Relampagos, was acting on behalf of the Budget Secretary based on instructions from the President to withdraw the SARO that did not comply with funding guidelines. As a department secretary can act on behalf of the President in their department, Relampagos properly exercised authority to withdraw the SARO. The Court also found no evidence Relampagos acted in bad faith, dismissing the petition against him.

Uploaded by

Rhea Mae A. Sibala
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

Degamo v Office of the Ombudsman and Mario L.

Relampagos

G.R. No. 212416, December 05, 2018

FACTS:
 In a June 18, 2012 letter to Budget and Management Secretary Florencio Abad (Abad), Public Works and
Highways Secretary Rogelio L. Singson requested the Department not to indicate the recipient local
government unit in the Special Allotment Release Order yet, since the Department of Public Works and
Highways needed to evaluate the local government units' capability to implement projects prior to the
release of a fund. Thus, Abad ordered Relampagos to withdraw the previously issued Special Allotment
Release Order and Notice of Cash Allocation.
 In a June 19, 2012 letter-advice, Relampagos informed Degamo that the Department is withdrawing the
Special Allotment Release Order because its release did not comply with the guidelines on large-scale
fund releases for infrastructure projects.
 Degamo then filed before the Office of the Ombudsman a Complaint for Usurpation of Authority or
Official Functions against Relampagos. He alleged that when Relampagos wrote the June 19, 2012 letter-
advice, Relampagos falsely posed himself to have been authorized by President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino
III. Degamo added that Relampagos usurped the official functions of the Executive Secretary, who had the
sole authority to write and speak for and on behalf of the President.

ISSUE: In withdrawing the Special Allotment Release Order (SARO), can an undersecretary invoke the qualified
political agency doctrine?

RULING:

 Yes, in withdrawing the Special Allotment Release Order, an undersecretary can invoke the qualified
political agency doctrine.
 It appears that private respondent was acting on behalf of Abad, upon the instructions of the President.
 Under the doctrine of qualified political agency, department secretaries may act for and on behalf of
the President on matters where the President is required to exercise authority in their respective
departments.
 Thus, this Court rules that private respondent, under Abad's authority, may exercise the power to
withdraw the Special Allotment Release Order through the letter-advice sent to petitioner.
 Finally, this Court finds that private respondent acted in good faith.
 The records fail to show that private respondent acted in bad faith in withdrawing the Special Allotment
Release Order.
 On the contrary, it appears it was petitioner who acted in bad faith.
 Private respondent claims that despite the notice of withdrawal and the directive to return the public
fund to the National Treasury pending compliance with the rules, petitioner brazenly procured various
infrastructure projects.
 Petitioner was the only one among the local chief executives who disregarded the order from the
Executive Department.[86]
 Thus, without proof that public respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion in finding no probable
cause to indict private respondent, this Petition is dismissed.

You might also like