Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Briliantes v. Comelec (2004) April 27, 2004 - the COMELEC met en banc to resolve whether to
proceed with its implementation of Phase III of the AES.
Petition: Petition for certiorari and prohibition Commissioner Tuason, Jr. stated that he had no objection as to the
Petitioner: SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR., JOSE CONCEPCION, JR., JOSE Phase III of the modernization project itself, but had concerns about
DE VENECIA, EDGARDO J. ANGARA, DR. JAIME Z. GALVEZ-TAN, the budget. He opined that other funds of the COMELEC may not be
FRANKLIN M. DRILON, FRISCO SAN JUAN, NORBERTO M. GONZALES, proper for realignment. Commissioners Resurreccion Z. Borra and
HONESTO M. GUTIERREZ, ISLETA, AND JOSE A. BERNAS, Petitioners- Virgilio Garcillano and Commissioner Manuel Barcelona, Jr.
in-Intervention expressed their concerns on the budget for the project.
Respondent: COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS Despite the serious reservations of most of its members, the
COMELEC on April 28, 2004, barely two weeks before the national
DOCTRINE: Unless specifically authorized in a General Appropriations law, and local elections, approved the assailed resolution Resolution
no change or modification shall be made in the expenditure items in the 6712 declaring that it "adopts the policy that the precinct election
said act and other appropriations laws unless in cases of augmentation results of each city and municipality shall be immediately transmitted
from savings in appropriations as authorized under Section 25(5), electronically in advance to the COMELEC, Manila."
Article VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Jose Concepcion, Jr., Jose De Venecia, Edgardo J. Angara, Dr.
Jaime Z. Galvez-Tan, Franklin M. Drilon, Frisco San Juan, Norberto
FACTS: M. Gonzales, Honesto M. Isleta and Jose A. Bernas, filed with this
Court their Motion to Admit Attached Petition-in-Intervention. In their
December 22, 1997 - Congress enacted Republic Act No. 8436, petition-in-intervention, movants-petitioners urge the Court to declare
authorizing the COMELEC to use an automated election system as null and void the assailed resolution and permanently enjoin the
(AES) for the process of voting, counting of votes and respondent COMELEC from implementing the same. The Court
canvassing/consolidating the results of the national and local granted the motion of the petitioners-in-intervention and admitted
elections. It also mandated the COMELEC to acquire automated their petition.
counting machines (ACMs), computer equipment, devices and
materials; and to adopt new electoral forms and printing materials. ISSUES:
October 29, 2002 - the COMELEC adopted, in its Resolution No. 02- 1. WoN whether Resolution No. 6712 is void for violating Art. VI, Sec.
0170, a modernization program for the 2004 elections consisting of 29 (par. 1) of the 1987 Constitution that "no money shall be paid out
three (3) phases, to wit: of the treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by
o (1) PHASE I – Computerized system of registration and law;"
voters validation or the so-called "biometrics" system of
registration;
o (2) PHASE II – Computerized voting and counting of votes; PROVISION:
and Article 6 Section 25 (5) - No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of
o (3) PHASE III – Electronic transmission of results. appropriations; however, the President, the President of the Senate, the
The COMELEC approved a Resolution on February 10, 2004 Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme
referring the letter of the Senate President Franklin Drilon. The Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be
COMELEC had to contend with the primal problem of sourcing the authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their
money for the implementation of the project since the money respective offices from savings in other items of their respective
allocated by the Office of the President for the AES had already been appropriations.
spent for the acquisition of the equipment. All these developments
notwithstanding, and despite the explicit specification in the project RULING + RATIO:
contract for Phase III that the same was functionally intended to be
an interface of Phases I and II of the AES modernization program, YES. The electronic transmission and tabulation of the election results under
the COMELEC was determined to carry out Phase III of the AES. Resolution No. 6712 is "unofficial" in character, meaning "not emanating from
or sanctioned or acknowledged by the government or government body. Any
Author: SILVER SNAKES
disbursement of public funds to implement this project is contrary to elections.
the provisions of the Constitution and Rep. Act No. 9206, which is the
2003 General Appropriations Act. Section 52 of Rep. Act No. 9206 proscribes any change or modification in the
expenditure items authorized thereunder. Thus:
The implementation of the assailed resolution would entail, in due course, the
hiring of additional manpower, technical services and acquisition of Sec. 52. Modification of Expenditure Components. Unless
equipment. According to the COMELEC during the hearing that the 2003 specifically authorized in this Act, no change or modification shall
General Appropriations Act, it needed P55,000,000 to operationalize the be made in the expenditure items in this Act and other
project, including the encoding process. Hence, it would necessarily involve appropriations laws unless in cases of augmentation from
the disbursement of public funds for which there must be the corresponding savings in appropriations as authorized under Section 25(5),
appropriation. Article VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
Earlier, during the April 27, 2004 meeting of the COMELEC En Banc, the Neither can the money needed for the project be taken from the COMELEC’s
Commissioners expressed their serious concerns about the lack of funds for savings, if any, because it would be violative of Article VI, Section 25 (5) of
the project, the propriety of using the funds for Phase III of its modernization, the 1987 Constitution.
and the possibility of realigning funds to finance the project.
The power to augment from savings lies dormant until authorized by law. In
We have reviewed Rep. Act No. 9206, the General Appropriations Act, which this case, no law has, thus, far been enacted authorizing the respondent
took effect on April 23, 2003 and find no appropriation for the project of COMELEC to transfer savings from another item in its appropriation, if
the COMELEC for electronic transmission of "unofficial" election there are any, to fund the assailed resolution. No less than the Secretary
results. What is appropriated therein is the amount of P225,000,000 of the of the Senate certified that there is no law appropriating any amount for an
capital outlay for the AES modernization of the electoral system, prescribed "unofficial" count and tabulation of the votes cast during the May 10, 2004
under Republic Act No. 8436, particularly for the process of voting, counting elections:
of votes and canvassing/consolidation of results of the national and local
What is worrisome is that despite the concerns of the Commissioners
B. PROJECTS Maintenance & Capital Total during its En Banc meeting on April 27, 2004, the COMELEC
Other Operating Outlays nevertheless approved the assailed resolution the very next day. Worse,
Expenses
even in the absence of a certification of availability of funds for the project, it
I. Locally-Funded Projects approved the assailed resolution.
a. For the Modernization of
Electoral System
225,000,000 225,000,000 Disposition: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed
Resolution No. 6712 dated April 28, 2004 issued by the Commission on
b. FY 2003 Preparatory Elections (COMELEC) En Banc is hereby declared NULL AND VOID.
250,000,000 250,000,000
Activities for National Elections
SO ORDERED.
c. Upgrading of Voters’
125,000,000 125,000,000
Database
e. Implementation of Absentee
300,000,000 300,000,000
Voting Act of 2003 (RA 9189)
ISSUES:
2. WoN Garcia’s case for reinstatement, readjustment and payment will
prosper
PROVISION:
Paragraph 11 (unconstutional) of RA 1600
o ―..That reserve officers with at least ten years of active
accumulated commissioned service who are still on active
duty at the time of the approval of this Act shall not be
reverted to in active statues except for cause after proper
court martial proceedings or upon their request.‖
Par 2, Sec. 19 Art Vi of the 1935 Constitution
o ― No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the
general appropriation bill unless it relates specifically to
Author: SILVER SNAKES
ATITIW vs. ZAMORA (2005)
PROVISION:
Petition:Petition for prohibition, mandamus, and declaratory relief Article VI of the Constitution
Petitioner: NESTOR G. ATITIW Sec. 1. The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the
Respondent: RONALDO B. ZAMORA, in his capacity as Executive Philippines, except to the extent reserved to the people by the
Secretary provision on initiative and referendum.
Ponencia:TINGA, J. Sec. 25 (2). No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the
general appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to some
particular appropriation therein. Any such provision or enactment
DOCTRINE:(Prohibition on "riders" in appropriation bills) shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it
A provision in an appropriations bill must relate specifically to some particular relates.
appropriations and shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation to
which it relates.
RULING + RATIO:
FACTS: 2. NO. The assailed paragraph 1 of the Special Provisions, insofar
1. The ratification of the 1987 Constitution ordains the creation of as it limits the spending of the appropriation for CAR to the
autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the Cordilleras mandating winding up of its activities, does not constitute a rider.
the Congress to enact organic acts pursuant to section article X of the - an appropriations bill covers a broader range of subject matter
Constitution. Thus, by virtue of the residual powers of President Cory Aquino and therefore includes more details compared to an ordinary bill.
she promulgated E.O 220 creating CAR. The title of an appropriations bill cannot be any broader as it is
since it is not feasible to come out with a title that embraces all
2. Then the congress enacted R.A 6766, an act providing for organic act for the details included in an appropriations bill. The assailed
the cordillera autonomous region, a plebiscite was cast but was not approve Special Provision directing appropriations for the Cordillera
by the people. The court declared that E.O 220 to be still in force and effect Administrative Region (CAR), which provides for the
until properly repealed or amended. expenditures to for activities and pay separation and retirement
benefits of all affected officials and employees is not a rider. A
3. Later on February 15, 2000, President Estrada signed the General rider is a provision which is alien to or not germane to the subject
Appropriations Act of 2000 (GAA 2000) which includes the assailed special or purpose of the bill in which it is incorporated. The rationale
provisions, then issued an E.O 270 to extend the implementation of the against riders is to preserve the unity of subject matter of the bill.
winding up of operations of the CAR. The Special Provision pertains to appropriations for CAR, it is
particular, unambiguous and appropriate, hence, it meets the
4. The petitioners seek the declaration of nullity of paragraph 1 of the special germaneness standard. Said paragraph meets the germaneness
provisions of RA 870 (GAA2000) directing that the appropriation for the CAR standard also because it lays down a limitation or restriction on
shall be spent to wind up its activities and pay the separation and retirement the use of a specific appropriation item already provided in the
benefits of all the affected members and employees 2000 GAA. It follows the standard that a provision in an
appropriations bill must relate specifically to some particular
ISSUES: appropriations.
3. WoN the assailed special provisions in R.A. 8760 (2000 GA) is a
rider and as such is unconstitutional; 3. YES. There is no such thing as irrepealable law.
- While it is true that E.O. No. 220 is a law as it was promulgated
4. WoN the Philippine government, through congress, can unilaterally by then President Aquino in the exercise of her extraordinary
amend/repeal E.O. No. 220; legislative power under the Freedom Constitution, said E.O. is no
different from any other law.
5. WoN the republic should be ordered to honor its commitments as
spelled out in E.O. No. 220
Author: SILVER SNAKES
4. NO. The three branches of government must discharge their
respective functions within the limits of authority conferred by
the Constitution.
- the Court has no authority to compel the Executive branch to
implement the provisions of E.O. No. 220 or to restore its
budgetary allocation to its previous level.
- the implementation of E.O. No. 220 is an executive prerogative
while the sourcing of funds to support the CAR’s activities is
within the province of the legislature.
DISPOSITION: DISMISSED.
Author: SILVER SNAKES
DEMETRIA V ALBA (1987) a. SECTION 44 OF THE 'BUDGET REFORM DECREE OF 1977'
INFRINGES UPON THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW BY
Petition: Prohibition with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction AUTHORIZING THE ILLEGAL TRANSFER OF PUBLIC
Petitioner: DEMETRIO G. DEMETRIA, M.P., AUGUSTO S. SANCHEZ, MONEYS.
M.P., ORLANDO S. MERCADO, M.P., HONORATO Y. AQUINO, M.P., b. SECTION 44 OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1177 IS
ZAFIRO L. RESPICIO, M.P., DOUGLAS R. CAGAS, M.P., OSCAR F. REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION AS IT FAILS TO
SANTOS, M.P., ALBERTO G. ROMULO, M.P., CIRIACO R. ALFELOR, SPECIFY THE OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSES FOR WHICH
M.P., ISIDORO E. REAL, M.P., EMIGDIO L. LINGAD, M.P., ROLANDO C. THE PROPOSED TRANSFER OF FUNDS ARE TO BE MADE.
MARCIAL, M.P., PEDRO M. MARCELLANA, M.P., VICTOR S. ZIGA, M.P., c. SECTION 44 OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1177 ALLOWS
and ROGELIO V. GARCIA. M.P. THE PRESIDENT TO OVERRIDE THE SAFEGUARDS, FORM
Respondent: HON. MANUEL ALBA in his capacity as the MINISTER OF AND PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED BY THE CONSTITUTION IN
THE BUDGET and VICTOR MACALINGCAG in his capacity as the APPROVING APPROPRIATIONS.
TREASURER OF THE PHILIPPINES d. SECTION 44 OF THE SAME DECREE AMOUNTS TO AN
Ponencia: FERNAN, J UNDUE DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS TO THE
EXECUTIVE.
e. THE THREATENED AND CONTINUING TRANSFER OF
DOCTRINE: (Paragraph 5: Direct Violation) FUNDS BY THE PRESIDENT AND THE IMPLEMENTATION
Judicial Power: Indeed, where the legislature or the executive branch is THEREOF BY THE BUDGET MINISTER AND THE
acting within the limits of its authority, the judiciary cannot and ought not to TREASURER OF THE PHILIPPINES ARE WITHOUT OR IN
interfere with the former. But where the legislature or the executive acts EXCESS OF THEIR AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION.
beyond the scope of its constitutional powers, it becomes the duty of the
judiciary to declare what the other branches of the government had assumed ISSUES:
to do as void. 6. WoN Paragraph 1 of Sec. 44 of PD No. 1177 is Unconstitutional.
Indeed, where the legislature or the executive branch is acting within the PROVISION:
limits of its authority, the judiciary cannot and ought not to interfere with the 1. ART 6 of Philippines Constitution
former. But where the legislature or the executive acts beyond the scope of a. Sec. 16[5]. No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer
its constitutional powers, it becomes the duty of the judiciary to declare what of appropriations, however, the President, the Prime
the other branches of the government had assumed to do as void. Minister, the Speaker, 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
FACTS: appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in
8. Petitioners, who filed the instant petition as concerned citizens of this other items of their respective appropriation.
country, as members of the National Assembly/Batasan Pambansa 2. Sec. 44 of PD. 1177
representing their millions of constituents, as parties with general interest a. The President shall have the authority to transfer any fund,
common to all the people of the Philippines, and as taxpayers whose appropriated for the different departments, bureaus, offices
vital interests may be affected by the outcome of the reliefs prayed for. and agencies of the Executive Department, which are
included in the General Appropriations Act, to any program,
9. Petitioners assailed the constitutionality of the first paragraph of Section project or activity of any department, bureau, or office
44 of Presidential Decree No. 1177, otherwise known as the "Budget included in the General Appropriations Act or approved after
Reform Decree of 1977." its enactment.
10. The grounds raised in the petition are as follows: RULING + RATIO:
6. YES. Section 44 of PD. 1177 is unconstitutional.
Author: SILVER SNAKES
a. Paragraph 1 of Section 44 of P.D. No. 1177 unduly over
extends the privilege granted under said Section 16[5]. It
empowers the President to indiscriminately transfer funds
from one department, bureau, office or agency of the
Executive Department to any program, project or activity of
any department, bureau or office included in the General
Appropriations Act or approved after its enactment, without
regard as to whether or not the funds to be transferred are
actually savings in the item from which the same are to be
taken, or whether or not the transfer is for the purpose of
augmenting the item to which said transfer is to be made. It
does not only completely disregard the standards set in the
fundamental law, thereby amounting to an undue delegation
of legislative powers, but likewise goes beyond the tenor
thereof. Indeed, such constitutional infirmities render the
provision in question null and void.
Petition: Prohibition with prayer for TRO (a) One Hundred Eighty Million Pesos
Petitioner: Liga ng mga Barangay et al (P180,000,000) from the appropriation of the
Respondent: COMELEC et al Department of Interior and Local Government
(DILG).
Funds needed by the Commission to defray the expenses for the holding
of regular and special elections, referenda and plebiscites shall be Deliberating on the seriousness of the aforementioned allegations
provided in the regular appropriation of the Commission which, upon in the Petition, and because of the proximity of the 9 May
request, shall immediately be released to the Commission. In case of barangay elections, the Court on 21 April 1994 resolved to
deficiency, the amount so provided shall be augmented from the special require respondents to comment on the Petition within a non-
activities funds in the general appropriation act and from those extendible period of five (5) days.
specifically appropriated for the purpose in special laws.
Respondent COMELEC particularly alleges that it intends to fund
the forthcoming barangay elections from the P137,878,000
appropriated by Congress for the said elections and from its
FACTS: (COMELEC's) own savings resulting from unused funds originally
intended for the conduct and supervision of elections and other
Petitioners claim that in the General Apropriation Act of political exercises such as funds for the sectoral elections which
1994, only One Hundred Thirty Seven Million Eight did not take place and possibly from a portion of its (COMELEC's)
Hundred Seventy Eight Thousand Pesos modernization program for which the amount of more than five
(P137,878,000.00) were appropriated by Congress for the hundred million pesos (P500,000,000) had been appropriated by
holding of the 1994 barangay elections. By early 1994, Congress.
according to peti- tioners, Congress itself had made an
assessment that such appropriated sum would be Respondents maintain that funds of local government units may
insufficient to defray the cost of holding the said elections. also be used to help defray the cost of the forthcoming barangay
elections. For authority, they cite Opinion No. 51, s. 1994 of the
In order to augment the said appropriated amount, Honorable, the Secretary of Justice, dated 19 April 1994, issued
petitioners allege that the respondents have threatened upon request from the COMELEC, wherein the former takes the
and are about to effect a transfer or re-allocation of the view that under Section 50 of the Omnibus Election Code, local
following amounts to be sourced from the executive and government units are required to appropriate funds for barangay
legislative branches of Government to respondent elections.
Author: SILVER SNAKES
work, activity or purpose for which the appropriation is authorized,
or arising from unpaid compensation and related costs pertaining
to vacant positions and leaves of absence without pay.
ISSUES:
7. WoN there is enough evidence that COMELEC was attempting to
effect the transfer of funds
RULING + RATIO:
PROVISION:
NO. the threat to pursue the scheme, if ever there was one, existed only
ART 6 Sec. 25 (5). No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of in newspaper reports which could have misled the general public,
appropriations; however, the President, the President of the Senate, the including the petitioners, into believing that the same emanated from
Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the unimpeccable sources.
Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by
law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law The Court acknowledges that petitioners have displayed vigilance and
for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective acted with the best of intentions when they filed the present petitions. Yet,
appropriations. it would have been more prudent for them to have first obtained an official
statement or at least confirmation from respondents as to the veracity of
Article IV of the same Code dealing with "Election of Barangay the reports contained in the said news item — which could itself have
Officials" : been quoted out of context by the reporter concerned or simply
abbreviated to meet the day's deadline.
Sec. 50. Funding. — Local governments shall appropriate such
funds to defray such necessary and reasonable expenses of the
members of the board of election tellers, board of canvassers and DISPOSITION: Petition dismissed for lack of merit.
the printing of election forms and procurement of other election
paraphernalia, and the installation of polling booths.
RULING + RATIO c. Highest Priority for Debt Service (Article 48) – constitutional;
exercises its power to respond to the imperatives of the national
1. Yes. Petitioners have locus standi interest and for the attainment of other state policies or objectives.
Author: SILVER SNAKES
The constitutional provision which directs the State shall assign the Special Provision on Road Maintenance – Congress specified
highest budgetary priority to education is merely directory. 30% ratio for works for maintenance of roads be contracted
As stated in Guingona, Jr. v. Carague: While it is true that under according to guidelines set forth by DPWH. Vetoed by the Pres.
w/o vetoing the entire appropriation. It is not an inappropriate
Section 5(5), Article XIV of the Constitution, Congress is mandated provision; it is not alien to the subj. of road maintenance &
to ―assign the highest budgetary priority to education‖ it does not cannot be veoted w/o vetoing the entire appropriation.
thereby follow that Congress is deprived of its power to respond to
the imperatives of the national interest and for the attainment of d. AFP medicines - VOID
other state policies or objectives.
Special Provision on AFP Medicines - Being directly related to
and inseparable from the appropriation item on purchases of
c. Whether or not the veto of the president on four special
medicines by the AFP, the special provision cannot be vetoed by
provisions of Article 48 of the GAA 1994 is unconstitutional and the President without also vetoing the said item.
void?
e. Military Equipment – VALID
Any provision which does not relate to any particular item, or which
extends in its operation beyond an item of appropriation, is Special Provision on Purchase of Military Equip. – AFP
considered ―an inappropriate provision‖ which can be vetoed modernization, prior approval of Congress required before
separately from an item. release of modernization funds. It is the so-called legislative
veto. Any prov. blocking an admin. action in implementing a law
Any provision blocking an administrative action in implementing a law or requiring legislative approval must be subj. of a separate law.
requiring legislative approval of executive acts must be incorporated
in a separate substantive bill. f. AFP pension funds- VALID
a. Provision on debt ceiling – VOID Special Provision on Use of Savings for AFP Pensions – allows
Chief of Staff to augment pension funds through the use of
Special Provision on Debt Ceiling – Congress provided for a savings. According to the Constitution, only the Pres. may
debt-ceiling. Vetoed by the Pres. w/o vetoing the entire exercise such power pursuant to a specific law. Properly vetoed.
appropriation for debt service. The said provisions are germane VETO VALID.
to & have direct relation w/ debt service. They are appropriate
provisions & cannot be vetoed w/o vetoing the entire g. Condition on the deactivation of CAGFU’s – VALID
item/appropriation.
Special Provision on Conditions for de-activation of CAFGU’s –
b. Funds of State Universities and Colleges (SUC’s) - VALID use of special fund for the compensation of the said CAFGU’s.
Vetoed, Pres. requires his prior approval. It is also an
Special Provision on Revolving Funds for SCU’s – said provision amendment to existing law (PD No. 1597 & RA No. 6758). A
allows for the use of income & creation of revolving fund for provision in an appropriation act cannot be used to repeal/amend
SCU’s. Provision for Western Visayas State Univ. & Leyte State existing laws.
Colleges vetoed by Pres. Other SCU’s enjoying the privilege do
so by existing law. Pres. merely acted in pursuance to existing h. Conditions on the appropriation for SC, Ombudsman, COA,
law. CHR - VALID
c. Road Maintenance ratio (70% administrative/ 30% contract) - By setting guidelines or conditions in his veto, the President is
VOID simply exercising his constitutional duty to implement the laws
faithfully.
Author: SILVER SNAKES
Author: SILVER SNAKES
iii. Office furnitures 7,500.00
SANCHEZ v COMMISSION ON AUDIT (2008) iv. Office supplies 3,682.50
v. Xerox 300.30
Petition: Certiorari vi. Transportation expense 406.00
vii. Bank charges 75.00
Petitioner: Andres Sanchez, Leonardo Regala, Rafael D. Barata, Norman
viii. Miscellaneous 60.00
Agbayani, Cesar Sarino ix. TOTAL P298,023.80
Respondent: Commission on Audit 4. The Department Auditor (DILG’s resident auditor) took cognizance of
Ponencia: Tinga, J. this transfer, citing that: there was no legal basis for the creation
of an ad hoc task force, the transfer was contrary to the limits
DOCTRINE: (Standard of care required) and requirements set out in the GAA, and that the second cash
advance was not yet held for accounting. A Notice of
The Constitutional requirement that the subject of an act shall be expressed in its title Disallowance was filed to the Department Secretary.
should be reasonably construed so as not to interfere unduly with the enactment of 5. Sarino, the DepSec, argues that: the transfer of the funds is within
necessary legislation. It should be given a practical, rather than technical,
construction. It should be a sufficient compliance with such requirement if the title
the ambit of the law, as these funds were being used for public
expresses the general subject and all the provisions of the statute are germane to that purposes, and that the issue of WoN the transfer was valid is an
general subject. (Sumulong v. The Commission on Elections, 73 Phil. 288, 291) issue for the courts to decide, and that, according to the case of
Binamira v Garrucho, acts committed by department heads,
unless disapproved by the President, are presumptively
FACTS: considered acts of the President himself and are therefore valid.
6. In response, the Department Auditor avers: while they were indeed
1. Republic Act 7180, otherwise known as the General Appropriations for public purposes, they were not the purposes contemplated
Act of 1992, was passed by Congress. The National Budget provided an by the GAA’s appropriation for the CBP. Public funds must be
appropriation to the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) used specifically for the purpose they were appropriated for.
the amount of Php 75,000,000.00 for the department’s Capability 7. The Commission on Audit upheld the Notice of Disallowance.
Building Program. This was a program for enriching and furthering local a. However, Commissioner Ursal wrote a dissenting opinion,
autonomy. agreeing that the transfer of funds from the CBP budget to
a. Under the Special Provisions of the CBP, it empowered the the Ad Hoc Task Force was indeed an act of the President.
DILG secretary to administer and manage the funds. Like 8. Petitioners argue further: the Notice of Disallowance had no legal
most government projects, savings from the national budget basis, the Ad Hoc Task Force is actually part and parcel of the
can be transferred to the CBP to strengthen it. CBP’s goals, thus the transfer is valid.
9. The OSG agreed with petitioners initially, citing that the Ad Hoc Task
2. Atty. Hiram Mendoza, a Project Director of an “Ad Hoc Task Force for Force indeed augmented the CBP’s goals, hence the transfer was
Inter-Agency Coordination to Implement Local Autonomy” proposed to valid.
Deputy Sec. De La Serna the creation of a satellite task force to 10. The COA argue: we have acted within our mandate in upholding
implement local autonomy. This task force would create modules, the notice of disallowance.
programs, and the like, under the Office of the President. The Deputy 11. The OSG eventually agreed with the COA itself, citing that if an Ad
Sec. approved the proposal. The task force’s estimated budget was Php Hoc Task Force was indeed needed, it should have been done
2,388,000.00 through the Local Government Academy, with approval of its Board
3. Cesar Sarino, the Executive Secretary of the DILG, approved the same of Trustees, pursuant to the GAA.
proposal. A cash advance of Php 600,000.00 was made, through two a. Further, the findings of the OSG reveal that a) the 600,000
separate disbursements of Php 300,000.00 pesos cash advance was not properly liquidated, there
a. A breakdown of the first cash advance’s expense was was no proper financial plan for the Ad Hoc Task Force,
submitted to the DILG, without receipts. Further, the no breakdown of projects, no receipts, no NOTHING.
second cash advance was not even given a breakdown: i. Hence, since bad faith is evident, the COA was
i. Payroll P 226,000.00 acting well within its mandate in upholding the
ii. Office rentals 60,000.00 notice.
Author: SILVER SNAKES
12. The COA adds: the CBP fund may be a regular appropriation, but it of transferring funds.
partakes the nature of a trust fund. It was allocated for a specific i. COURT: This is a gratuitous argument. In the first
purpose. place, Sec. 25(5) of Art. VI clearly limits the authority
of transferring funds to SEVEN people.
ii. It cannot be maintained that when the Constitution
ISSUES: stated ―The President‖ in this provision, it meant
a.) Is there a legal basis for the cash transfer from the DILG’s CBP fund those who shared in the same authority BY LEGAL
to the Ad Hoc Task Force under the Office of the President? FICTION.
b. Even if the President himself approved of the fund transfer
b.) Were the conditions and requisites for a valid transfer of funds from the CBP to the Ad Hoc Task Force, it would be
observed? INVALID because IT WASN’T TRANSFERRED FROM
SAVINGS.
i. The Constitution is clear: transfer of funds may only
PROVISION: be taken from SAVINGS.
ii. How can there be savings when the transfer was
Section 25. (1) The Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by
the President for the operation of the Government as specified in the budget. The form,
conducted at the BEGINNING OF THE
content, and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law. GOVERNMENT’S FISCAL YEAR? AFTER THE
PASSING OF THE NATIONAL BUDGET?
(2) No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriations bill unless iii. Further investigation of the Court revealed that even
it relates specifically to some particular appropriation therein. Any such provision or
if it were the beginning of the fiscal year, NO
enactment shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it relates.
SAVINGS had carried over from the previous budget
(3) The procedure in approving appropriations for the Congress shall strictly follow the of the DILG.
procedure for approving appropriations for other departments and agencies. c. Contrary to jurisprudence:
i. The Court has declared in the landmark case of
(4) A special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose for which it is intended, and shall be
supported by funds actually available as certified by the National Treasurer, or to be raised by a Demetria v Alba that the President cannot transfer
corresponding revenue proposal therein. funds from one department to another, regardless of
the purpose. And this case was decided under the
(5) 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
1973 Constitution!
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, 1. How can an act invalid during the Marcos
by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for era be valid NOW?
their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.
b.) NO
(6) Discretionary funds appropriated for particular officials shall be disbursed only for
public purposes to be supported by appropriate vouchers and subject to such guidelines as a. Sec. 19 of the GAA of 1992 states: Meaning of Savings and
may be prescribed by law. Augmentation: Savings refer to portions or balances of any programmed
appropriation free of any obligation or encumbrance still available after the
(7) If, by the end of any fiscal year, the Congress shall have failed to pass the general satisfactory completion or unavoidable discontinuance or abandonment of
appropriations bill for the ensuing fiscal year, the general appropriations law for the the work, activity or purpose for which the appropriation is authorized, or
preceding fiscal year shall be deemed re-enacted and shall remain in force and effect until the arising from unpaid compensation and related costs pertaining to vacant
general appropriations bill is passed by the Congress. positions and leaves of absence without pay. Augmentation implies the
existence in this Act of an item, project, activity or purpose with an
appropriation which upon implementation or subsequent evaluation of
needed resources is determined to be deficient. In no case, therefore, shall
RULING + RATIO a non-existent item, project, activity, purpose or object of expenditure be
funded by augmentation from savings or by the use of appropriations
a.) NONE authorized otherwise in this act
a. Petitioner argues that, as the department head, his acts are
clothed with the same authority as that of the President’s. It b. Clearly, there are two requisites:
is under this argument that he couches the validity of the act i. there must be savings in the programmed
Author: SILVER SNAKES
appropriation of the transferring agency
ii. there must be an existing item, project or activity
with an appropriation in the receiving agency to
which the savings will be transferred.
c. Actual Savings is a sine qua non to the transfer of funds. In
this case, there were no actual savings!
d. For the second requisite, the Court ruled that the Ad Hoc
Task Force was SHADY. Temporary in nature, vague
objectives, obviously not an augmentation to the DILG’s
projects, accountable to the Office of the President, no
evidence as to how it was created, who’s in it, where it came
from, and in fact the 600k cash advance could not be held
accounted for!