CASE DIGEST

ARAULLO VS AQUINO:
G.R. No. 209287
July 1, 2014
Key words: appropriation made by law, judicial review, certiorari
Facts:
In the case of Araullo vs Aquino, the Supreme Court (SC) consolidated 9 petitions for
certiorari and prohibition assailing the constitutionality of President Benigno Simeon
Aquinos Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP)
Responding to the allegations of Senator Jingoy Estrada that an additional 50 million
pesos had been allotted to some Senators as incentive for the Corona
impeachment case, DBM Secretary Butch Abad explained that the funds released to
the senators were part of DAP, which was instituted in 2011 to ramp up spending
after sluggish disbursements had caused the growth of the gross domestic product
(GDP) to slow down.
Abad also explained that DAP usually came from three 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.
Petitioners assailed the constitutionality of DAP based on 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." Petitioners contend that, through DAP,
the President has usurped the power Congress to appropriate.
The respondents submitted that there is no actual controversy that is ripe for
adjudication in the absence of adverse claims between the parties; that the
petitioners lacked legal standing to sue because no allegations were made to the
effect that they had suffered any injury as a result of the adoption of the DAP. The
respondents also averred that the special civil actions of certiorari and prohibition
are not proper actions for directly assailing the constitutionality and validity of the
DAP.
ISSUE #1: Whether or not DAP violated Sec. 29, Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution
DECISION: No. DAP did not violate Sec. 29, Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution
REASON: The Department of Budget and Management did not violate Sec. 29, Art.
VI of the 1987 Constitution since, as the SC explained, DAPs adoption and
implementation was a function pertaining to the Executive as the main actor in the
Budget Execution Stage. According to the SC, Congress could appropriate but
would have nothing more to do during the Budget Execution Stage. With reference
to case of Gonzales v. Raquiza, defined appropriation as the act of the legislature
setting apart or assigning to a particular use a certain sum to be used in the
payment of debt or dues from the State to its creditors."

SC also noted that the President had sufficient discretion to adapt the budget to the
economic situation of the country or pool the savings to identify other programs.
The SCS also explained that, the pooling of savings pursuant to the DAP, and the
identification of the programs to be funded under the DAP did not involve
appropriation in the strict sense because the money had been already set apart
from the public treasury by Congress through the GAAs. In such actions, the
Executive did not usurp the power vested in Congress under Section 29(1), Article VI
of the Constitution.
Nonetheless, DAP was declared unconstitutional by violation of Section 25 (5) Article
VI of the 1987 constitution which states that No law shall be passed authorizing
any transfer of appropriations. Transfer of funds from the executive department to
the senate under DAP was unconstitutional.
ISSUE #2 (for Section 5 (2) Article VIII of the assigned Cases): Whether or
not certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus are proper remedies to assail the
constitutionality and validity of the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP)
DECISION # 2: Yes. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the SC can affirm on
certiorari the unconstitutionality of DAP. The SC partially granted the petitions for
certiorari and prohibition.
REASON:
The SC emphasized that the Constitution states that judicial power includes the
duty of the courts of justice not only "to settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable" but also "to determine whether or
not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government." The
judicial system provides two remedies to correct errors of jurisdiction: writ of
certiorari and prohibition.
The SC also expressed: Following our recent dispositions concerning the
congressional pork barrel, the Court has become more alert to discharge its
constitutional duty. We will not now refrain from exercising our expanded judicial
power in order to review and determine, with authority, the limitations on the Chief
Executives spending power.
The SC likewise explained that the requisites for the exercise of judicial review were
met. 1) As to the question of the existence of an actual controversy in the case, the
SC explained that the incompatibility of the perspectives of the parties on the
constitutionality of the DAP and its relevant issuances satisfy the requirement for a
conflict between legal rights. 2) With regard to the ripeness of the controversy or
the question of whether or not the act being challenged had an adverse affect on
the person challenging it, the SC explained that the allocation, disbursement or
utilization of public funds by reason or on account of such challenged executive acts

gave rise, therefore, to an actual controversy that is ripe for adjudication by the
Court. 3) The SC relaxed its observance of the requirement for locus standi, waiving
it as mere procedural technicality, since the case of transcendental importance.