Araullo v.
Aquino III | G.R. No. 209287 | February 3, 2015 | Bersamin, J. |
FACTS:
- In a privilege
speech, Sen. Jinggoy Estrada revealed that he and his fellow senators received
50 million-peso incentive because of their vote to impeach Chief Justice
Corona.
- Sec. Abad responded
to the speech saying that it is part of the Spending Acceleration Program.
1.
The Spending
Acceleration Program is also known as the Disbursement Acceleration Program
[DAP].
2.
Sec. Abad also
said that the money was given in response to several funding requests from the
senators.
- The money used
for the DAP are taken from:
1.
Unreleased
appropriations under personnel services;
2.
Unprogrammed [sic] funds;
3.
Carry-over
appropriations unreleased from the previous year; and
4.
Budget for
slow-moving items or projects that had been realigned to support
faster-disbursing projects.
- The Department
of Budget and Management [DBM] released a claim on its website saying that the
money used for the DAP are savings from:
1.
Pooling of unreleased
appropriations, and
2.
Withdrawal of unobligated
allotments.
- The legal bases
of DBM in implementing DAP vis-à-vis the use of savings are as follows:
1.
Article VI,
Sec. 25 (5) of the Constitution, which granted the President the power to
augment an item for his office in the general appropriations law,
2.
Administrative
Code of 1987’s Book VI, Chapter 5, Sections 38 (suspension of expenditure
appropriations) and 49 (Authority to use savings for certain purpose),
3.
2011-2013
General Appropriations Acts (GAAs) which provides for (a) use of savings, (b)
meanings of savings and augmentation, and (c) priority in the use of savings.
- With regard to unprogrammed [sic]
funds, the legal bases of DBM are the 2011-2013 GAAs.
- Araullo, et al., filed a
petition to the Supreme Court assailing the Constitutionality of National Budget Circular [NBC] No. 541, which was issued to implement the DAP.
ISSUES:
1. WON the certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus are proper remedies to assail the Constitutionality and validity of the DAP, NBC no. 541, and other issuances implementing the DAP?
a) WON controversy is ripe for judicial determination; and
b) WON the petitioners have locus standi?
2. WON the DAP violates Article VI, Sec. 29 of the Constitution, which provides, “[n]o money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law”?
3. WON the DAP, NBC Bo. 541, and all other executive issuances allegedly implementing the DAP violate Article VI, Sec. 25 (5) of the Constitution insofar as:
c) They treat the unreleased appropriations and unobligated allotments withdrawn from government agencies as “savings” as the term used in Sec. 25 (5), in relation to 2011-2013 GAAs,
d) They authorize the disbursement of funds for projects or programs not provided in the GAAs for the Executive Departments, and
e) They augment discretionary lump sum appropriations in the GAAs?
4. WON the DAP violates (1) the equal protection clause [EPC], (2) the system of checks and balances, and (3)the principle of public accountability enshrined in the Constitution that it authorizes the release of funds upon the request of legislators?
5. WON factual and legal justification exists to issue a TRO to restrain the implementation of DAP and other executive issuances implementing DAP?
HELD:
1) Yes, certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus are proper remedies to assail
the Constitutionality of DAP. Since certiorari
and prohibition are large in scope and the issues involved the limitations
of the Executive’s spending power, the said remedies are proper.
A.
The case is not
moot and academic even if the President has terminated the DAP. The fact that
huge public funds have been allocated, disbursed, or utilized by reason or on
account of the challenged executive acts gave rise to an actual controversy
that is ripe for adjudication. Even if assuming that the DAP has mooted the
case, this case still falls under the exception to the requirement of ripeness:
i.
There is a
grave violation of the Constitution,
ii.
The case involved
a situation of exceptional character and was of paramount public interest,
iii.
When the
constitutional issue raised required the formulation of controlling principles
to guide the Bench, the Bar, and the public, and
iv.
When the case
was capable of repetition yet evading review.
B.
The petitioners
have legal standing to assail the Constitutionality of the DAP. Considering
that the issue involves the expenditure of public funds and the present case is
of transcendental importance, the petitioners do have a legal standing to raise
the issues before the Court.
2) No, there is no
violation of the provision since DAP is not an appropriation measure but a
program of prioritizing spending. Congress’s duty vis-à-vis treasury is to
allocate funds in the treasury in a particular fund.
3) Yes. The term
“savings” does not include unreleased appropriations and withdrawn unobligated
allotments under the DAP because “savings” refers to portions or balances of
any programmed appropriation in the GAA free from any obligation or
encumbrance, which are:
A.
Still available
after the completion or final discontinuance or abandonment of the work,
activity or purpose for which the appropriation is authorize,
B.
From
appropriations balances arising from unpaid compensation and related costs
pertaining to vacant positions and leaves of absences without pay, and
C.
From
appropriations balances realized form the implementation of measures resulting
in improved systems and efficiencies and thus enabled agencies to meet and
deliver the required or planned targets, programs, and services approved in the
GAAs at a lesser cost.
Mere declaration of the DBM will not ripen the status
of the funds under the DAP to the categories considered as savings. It is
necessary that these funds must be released first and not merely withheld.
On the other hand, the term “augment” means to enlarge
or increase the allotment for an item in the GAA wherein the current
appropriation for the said item is deficient.
The Constitution also limits the augmentation within
the office of the President; hence, savings of the Executive branch must be
augmented only to an item under the executive. In the present case, the
“savings” of the Executive were augmented to the members of Congress.
Therefore, the Constitutional provision was violated.
4) The Court did
not pass upon a judgment over the alleged violation of the EPC because the
contentions of Luna and COURAGE are speculative. As regards to the violation of
separation of powers and the public accountability, the Court has already
addressed the issue in the discussion of other issues.
5) No, the
doctrine of operative fact applies. A legislative or executive act is presumed to
be constitutional such that when it is declared void for being unconstitutional
does not give rise to any right or obligation. The Court recognized that the
result of the DAP and its related issuances could not be ignored and be undone.
The Court also declared that the doctrine of operative fact is not confined to
statutes and rules and regulations. The doctrine can be invoked only in
situations where the nullification of the effects of what used to be a valid
law would result in inequity and injustice.
Other
concepts discussed:
Budget cycle:
- Budget
preparation- it is commenced by the issuance of
DBM of budget calls, i.e., one for government offices including SUCs and
another for GOCCs and GFIs. The government agencies will then submit their
respective budget proposals to the DBM. DBM will consolidate these proposals to
the National Expenditure Program [NEP] and a Budget of Expenditures and Sources
of Financing [BESF].
- Budget
legislation or budget authorization- the
Congress will receive the President’s budget, which includes the NEP and BESF.
With this, Congress will come up with a General Appropriations Bill [GAB]. The
President will then approve of the GAB and make it into GAA [See Phil.
Const. art. VI, § 27 (2)].
- Budget
execution- the Budget Execution Phase is
primarily the function of the DBM, which is tasked to perform the following
procedures, namely: (1) to issue the programs and guidelines for the release of
funds; (2) to prepare an Allotment and Cash Release Program; (3) to release
allotments; and (4) to issue disbursement authorities
- Accountability- it ensures that the government funds have been
effectively and efficiently utilized to achieve the State’s socio-economic
goals. It also allows the DBM to assess the performance of agencies during the
fiscal year for the purpose of implementing reforms and establishing new
policies. An agency’s accountability may be examined and evaluated through (1)
performance targets and outcomes; (2) budget accountability reports; (3) review
of agency performance; and (4) audit conducted by the Commission on Audit (COA).
Public Expenditures:
o Categories:
- Capital
Expenditures are the expenses whose usefulness
lasts for more than one year, and which add to the assets of the Government,
including investments in the capital of government-owned or controlled
corporations and their subsidiaries.
- Current
Operating Expenditures are the
purchases of goods and services in current consumption the benefit of which does
not extend beyond the fiscal year.
o Functions:
- Economic development expenditures
- Social services or social development expenditures
- General government or general public services
expenditures
- National Defense expenditures
- Public debt
Comments
Post a Comment