Key Takeaway: Strict Adherence to Regulations is Crucial in the Use of Intelligence and Confidential Funds

Miguel Rene A. Dominguez v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 256285, August 03, 2021

Imagine a local government official tasked with enhancing peace and security in their community. They decide to allocate funds to train local volunteers and track unlicensed firearms, believing these actions will bolster intelligence efforts. However, without proper authorization, these well-intentioned actions could lead to significant legal repercussions. This is the crux of the Supreme Court case involving Miguel Rene A. Dominguez and the Commission on Audit (COA), where the court had to decide whether the use of intelligence and confidential funds for such purposes was lawful.

In this case, Miguel Rene A. Dominguez, the former Governor of Sarangani, was found liable for the improper use of intelligence and confidential funds amounting to P4,680,000.00. The central issue revolved around whether the expenditures for training barangay tanods, registering unlicensed firearms, and conducting peace education were permissible under Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) Memorandum Circular No. 99-65 (MC No. 99-65).

Legal Context: Understanding Intelligence and Confidential Funds

Intelligence and confidential funds are allocated to government agencies to support activities that are sensitive in nature, such as gathering information or maintaining safehouses. These funds are governed by specific regulations to ensure transparency and accountability. In the Philippines, MC No. 99-65 sets out the guidelines for local government units (LGUs) on how these funds can be used.

Key provisions of MC No. 99-65 include:

3. The use of funds for Intelligence and Confidential activities shall be limited to the following: (a) purchase of information; (b) payment of rewards; (c) rental and other incidental expenses relative to the maintenance of safehouses; and (d) purchase of supplies and ammunitions, provision of medical and food aid, as well as payment of incentives or travelling expenses relative to the conduct of intelligence or confidential operations.

These provisions are crucial because they define the permissible uses of intelligence and confidential funds. Any expenditure outside these specified uses is considered irregular. For instance, if a local government uses these funds to purchase vehicles for general use, it would violate the circular’s stipulations.

Case Breakdown: The Journey of Miguel Rene A. Dominguez

Miguel Rene A. Dominguez, as Governor of Sarangani, approved a Local Government Security Plan in 2009 to address the province’s security concerns. This plan included activities like training barangay tanods and registering unlicensed firearms, which were funded through intelligence and confidential funds. Initially, these expenditures were approved by the DILG for 2009 and 2010.

However, in 2011 and 2012, the COA-Intelligence and Confidential Fund Audit Unit (ICFAU) issued Notices of Disallowance, claiming that the funds were used for activities that should have been charged to the Peace and Order Program Fund. Dominguez appealed these disallowances, arguing that the activities were essential for intelligence gathering and were previously approved.

The Supreme Court, in its decision, emphasized that:

The rule is unequivocal that the use of funds for intelligence and confidential activities shall be limited to the enumerated items as provided, i.e., purchase of information; payment of rewards; rental and other incidental expenses relative to the maintenance of safehouses; and purchase of supplies and ammunitions, provision of medical and food aid, as well as payment of incentives or travelling expenses relative to the conduct of intelligence or confidential operations.

The court rejected Dominguez’s arguments, stating that the activities did not fall under the allowed uses of intelligence and confidential funds. Furthermore, the court noted that:

In allowing the cash advances even without the requisite approval from the DILG, the petitioner undertook the responsibility for the same, and he cannot now claim good faith or that he has a right to rely on previous approvals.

The court also clarified that the doctrine of operative fact did not apply, as it pertains to the validity of actions taken before a law or executive act is declared invalid, which was not the situation in this case.

Practical Implications: Lessons for Local Government Officials

This ruling underscores the importance of strict adherence to regulations when using intelligence and confidential funds. Local government officials must ensure that expenditures align with the specific uses outlined in MC No. 99-65 and obtain necessary approvals from the DILG for any deviations.

Key Lessons:

• Always refer to the specific guidelines in MC No. 99-65 for permissible uses of intelligence and confidential funds.
• Obtain prior approval from the DILG for any expenditures that exceed the limitations set by the circular.
• Maintain clear documentation and justification for all expenditures to avoid disallowances during audits.

For businesses or organizations working with local governments, understanding these regulations can help in planning collaborative projects and ensuring compliance with legal standards.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are intelligence and confidential funds?
Intelligence and confidential funds are special allocations given to government agencies for activities that require secrecy, such as gathering information or maintaining safehouses.

What is MC No. 99-65?
MC No. 99-65 is a Department of the Interior and Local Government memorandum circular that outlines the guidelines for the use of intelligence and confidential funds by local government units.

Can local governments use intelligence and confidential funds for any purpose?
No, these funds can only be used for specific purposes outlined in MC No. 99-65, such as purchasing information, paying rewards, and maintaining safehouses.

What happens if these funds are used improperly?
Improper use of intelligence and confidential funds can lead to disallowances by the Commission on Audit, and the officials responsible may be held liable to return the disallowed amounts.

How can local governments ensure compliance with MC No. 99-65?
Local governments should strictly adhere to the guidelines in MC No. 99-65, obtain necessary approvals from the DILG, and maintain thorough documentation of all expenditures.

ASG Law specializes in local government law and public accountability. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.