|GARCIA, MARIA REYLAN, M. 1350017
Araullo, et. Al vs. President Aquino, et. AlGR Nos. 209287,
209135, 209136, 209155, 209164, 209260, 209442, 209517,
209568Promulgated: July 1, 2014
OVERVIEW
Senator Jinggoy Estrada delivered a privileged speech alleging
that P50 million was given as incentive for senators who voted to
impeach former Chief Justice Renato Corona. Department of Budget
Management Secretary Florencio Abad then explained to the public
that such incentive was actually part of the executive branchs
Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP for brevity). DAP was
conceived to expedite economic expansion by resolving sluggish
disbursements hampering the countrys GDP (gross domestic product).
The DAP funds were taken from the following sources: (1) unreleased
appropriations under Personnel Services; (2) unprogrammed funds;
(3) carry-over appropriations unreleased from the previous year;
and (4) budgets for slow-moving items or projects that had been
realigned to support faster-disbursing projects.
Nine petitions were then filed to assail the constitutionality
of DAP and its accompanying issuances.
ISSUES
1. Whether or not DAP violates Sec. 29, Art. VI of the 1987
Constitution, which provides: "No money shall be paid out of the
Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law."
2. Whether or not the DAP, NBC No. 541, and all other executive
issuances allegedly implementing the DAP violate Sec. 25(5), Art.
VI of the 1987 Constitution (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.)
SC DECISION
1. The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. DAP does not need an
enacting legislation to be valid because it is not an appropriation
measure. It is a program or an administrative system of
prioritizing spending; and that the adoption of the DAP was by
virtue of the authority of the President as the Chief Executive to
ensure that laws were faithfully executed. Furthermore, the
President, faithful to his duty to execute laws, has the discretion
to adapt the budget to meet the changes in the countrys economic
situation. DAP is within the scope of such discretion.
2. The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. DAP violated the
Constitution by considering unreleased appropriations and withdrawn
unobligated allotments under the DAP as savings; that there were
invalid transfers due to lack of authorizing provisions in the
General Appropriations Act (GAA); that the savings were transferred
to augment deficient items not provided by the GAA; and, that there
were illegal cross-border transfers or transfers beyond the
respective offices of the heads allowed by the Constitution to
augment items in the GAA [Section 25(5), Art. VI, 1987
Constitution]
DAP IN CORRELATION TO SEC.39 ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
Sec. 39, Chapter 5, Book VI, provides that except as otherwise
provided in the General Appropriations Act, any savings in the
regular appropriations authorized in the General Appropriations Act
for programs and projects of any department, office or agency, may,
with the approval of the President, be used to cover a deficit in
any other item of the regular appropriations. Although at first
glance it may seem that the Presidents power to augment is
applicable to any department, office or agency even outside of the
executive branch, EO 292 (Administrative Code) must be interpreted
in consonance with a higher law, the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
There is a constitutional limitation, under Section 25(5), Art. VI,
to the power of the President to augment or transfer funds. He can
only do so within the agencies under the executive department.
OPINION
I agree with the decision of the Supreme Court as it was able to
prevent the propagation of ultra vires acts of fund transfers but
at the same time affirm to the public that the intentions and the
existence of the Disbursement Acceleration Program is legal and not
contrary to the Constitution. How the DAP was carried was the only
problem. The Supreme Court did not fail to consider how DAP had
accelerated, is accelerating and may accelerate the sloth-like
economic programs. In a country where governmental red tape is
omnipresent, efforts in speeding up governmental services are both
novel and noble. Nevertheless, their legitimate implementation must
also be taken into accord.
