Avelino vs. Cuenco, GR No.

L-2821, March 4, 1949

FACTS: The petitioners, Senator Jose Avelino, in a quo warranto

proceeding, asked the court to declare him the rightful Senate President
and oust the respondent, Mariano Cuenco. In a session of the Senate,
Tanadas request to deliver a speech in order to formulate charges against
then Senate President Avelino was approved. With the leadership of the
Senate President followed by his supporters, they deliberately tried to delay
and prevent Tanada from delivering his speech. The SP with his supporters
employed delaying tactics, the tried to adjourn the session then walked out.
Only 12 Senators were left in the hall. The members of the senate left
continued the session and Senator Cuenco was appointed as the Acting
President of the Senate and was recognized the next day by the President of
the Philippines.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the court has jurisdiction of the case.
2. Whether or not Resolutions 67 & 68 was validly approved.

HELD:
1. The Court has no jurisdiction of the case because the subject matter is
political in nature and in doing so, the court will be against the doctrine of
separation of powers. To the first question, the answer is in the negative, in
view of the separation of powers, the political nature of the controversy
(Alejandrino vs. Quezon, 46 Phil. 83; Vera vs. Avelino, 77 Phil. 192;
Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito, 78 Phil. 1) and the constitutional grant to the
Senate of the power to elect its own president, which power should not be
interfered with, nor taken over, by the judiciary. We refused to take
cognizance of the Vera case even if the rights of the electors of the
suspended senators were alleged affected without any immediate remedy. A
fortiori we should abstain in this case because the selection of the presiding
officer affect only the Senators themselves who are at liberty at any time to
choose their officers, change or reinstate them. Anyway, if, as the petition
must imply to be acceptable, the majority of the Senators want petitioner to
preside, his remedy lies in the Senate Session Hall not in the Supreme
Court.

2. It was held that there is a quorum that 12 being the majority of 23. In
fine, all the four justice agree that the Court being confronted with the
practical situation that of the twenty three senators who may participate in
the Senate deliberations in the days immediately after this decision, twelve
senators will support Senator Cuenco and, at most, eleven will side with
Senator Avelino, it would be most injudicious to declare the latter as the
rightful President of the Senate, that office being essentially one that
depends exclusively upon the will of the majority of the senators, the rule of
the Senate about tenure of the President of that body being amenable at
any time by that majority. And at any session hereafter held with thirteen or
more senators, in order to avoid all controversy arising from the divergence
of opinion here about quorum and for the benefit of all concerned,the said
twelve senators who approved the resolutions herein involved could ratify
all their acts and thereby place them beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Guingona vs. Gonzales, GR No. 106971, Oct. 20, 1992

Facts: As a result of national elections on May 1992, the Senate was

composed by the following by parties: LDP IS, NPC 5, Lakas 3.
Applying the mathematical formula agreed by parties they are entitled to
twelve seats. On the organization of the Senate, Majority Floor Leader
Romulo nominated eight senators for Commission on Appointments. Senator
Guingona objected on the nomination of Osmea.

Issue: Whether or not the Constitution requires the election and presence
of 12 senators in the Commission?

Decision: Constitution does not require the election and presence of 12

Senators for the Commission to function. Other instances may be mentioned
of Constitutional collegial bodies which perform their functions even if their
composition is expressly specified by the Constittion.
 Araullo vs. Aquino III, GR 209287, July 1, 2014

Facts: When President Benigno Aquino III took office, his administration
noticed the sluggish growth of the economy. The World Bank advised that
the economy needed a stimulus plan. Budget Secretary Florencio Butch
Abad then came up with a program called the Disbursement Acceleration
Program (DAP).
The DAP was seen as a remedy to speed up the funding of government
projects. DAP enables the Executive to realign funds from slow moving
projects to priority projects instead of waiting for next years appropriation.
So what happens under the DAP was that if a certain government project is
being undertaken slowly by a certain executive agency, the funds allotted
therefor will be withdrawn by the Executive. Once withdrawn, these funds
are declared as savings by the Executive and said funds will then be
reallotted to other priority projects. The DAP program did work to
stimulate the economy as economic growth was in fact reported and portion
of such growth was attributed to the DAP (as noted by the Supreme Court).

Other sources of the DAP include the unprogrammed funds from the
General Appropriations Act (GAA). Unprogrammed funds are standby
appropriations made by Congress in the GAA.
Meanwhile, in September 2013, Senator Jinggoy Estrada made an expos
claiming that he, and other Senators, received Php50M from the President
as an incentive for voting in favor of the impeachment of then Chief Justice
Renato Corona. Secretary Abad claimed that the money was taken from the
DAP but was disbursed upon the request of the Senators.

This apparently opened a can of worms as it turns out that the DAP does not
only realign funds within the Executive. It turns out that some non-
Executive projects were also funded; to name a few: Php1.5B for the CPLA
(Cordillera Peoples Liberation Army), Php1.8B for the MNLF (Moro
National Liberation Front), P700M for the Quezon Province, P50-P100M for
certain Senators each, P10B for Relocation Projects, etc.

This prompted Maria Carolina Araullo, Chairperson of the Bagong

Alyansang Makabayan, and several other concerned citizens to file various
petitions with the Supreme Court questioning the validity of the DAP.
Among their contentions was:

DAP is unconstitutional because it violates the constitutional rule which

provides that no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in
pursuance of an appropriation made by law.

Secretary Abad argued that the DAP is based on certain laws particularly
the GAA (savings and augmentation provisions thereof), Sec. 25(5), Art. VI
of the Constitution (power of the President to augment), Secs. 38 and 49 of
Executive Order 292 (power of the President to suspend expenditures and
authority to use savings, respectively).

Issues:

I. Whether or not the DAP violates the principle no money shall be paid out
of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law (Sec.
29(1), Art. VI, Constitution).

II. Whether or not the DAP realignments can be considered as

impoundments by the executive.

III. Whether or not the DAP realignments/transfers are constitutional.

IV. Whether or not the sourcing of unprogrammed funds to the DAP is

constitutional.

V. Whether or not the Doctrine of Operative Fact is applicable.

HELD:
I. No, the DAP did not violate Section 29(1), Art. VI of the Constitution. DAP
was merely a program by the Executive and is not a fund nor is it an
appropriation. It is a program for prioritizing government spending. As
such, it did not violate the Constitutional provision cited in Section 29(1),
Art. VI of the Constitution. In DAP no additional funds were withdrawn from
the Treasury otherwise, an appropriation made by law would have been
required. Funds, which were already appropriated for by the GAA, were
merely being realigned via the DAP.

II. No, there is no executive impoundment in the DAP. Impoundment of

funds refers to the Presidents power to refuse to spend appropriations or to
retain or deduct appropriations for whatever reason. Impoundment is
actually prohibited by the GAA unless there will be an unmanageable
national government budget deficit (which did not happen). Nevertheless,
theres no impoundment in the case at bar because whats involved in the
DAP was the transfer of funds.

III. No, the transfers made through the DAP were unconstitutional. It is true
that the President (and even the heads of the other branches of the
government) are allowed by the Constitution to make realignment of funds,
however, such transfer or realignment should only be made within their
respective offices. Thus, no cross-border transfers/augmentations may be
allowed. But under the DAP, this was violated because funds appropriated
by the GAA for the Executive were being transferred to the Legislative and
other non-Executive agencies.

Further, transfers within their respective offices also contemplate

realignment of funds to an existing project in the GAA. Under the DAP, even
though some projects were within the Executive, these projects are non-
existent insofar as the GAA is concerned because no funds were
appropriated to them in the GAA. Although some of these projects may be
legitimate, they are still non-existent under the GAA because they were not
provided for by the GAA. As such, transfer to such projects is
unconstitutional and is without legal basis.

On the issue of what are savings

These DAP transfers are not savings contrary to what was being declared
by the Executive. Under the definition of savings in the GAA, savings only
occur, among other instances, when there is an excess in the funding of a
certain project once it is completed, finally discontinued, or finally
abandoned. The GAA does not refer to savings as funds withdrawn from a
slow moving project. Thus, since the statutory definition of savings was not
complied with under the DAP, there is no basis at all for the transfers.
Further, savings should only be declared at the end of the fiscal year. But
under the DAP, funds are already being withdrawn from certain projects in
the middle of the year and then being declared as savings by the
Executive particularly by the DBM.

IV. No. Unprogrammed funds from the GAA cannot be used as money source
for the DAP because under the law, such funds may only be used if there is a
certification from the National Treasurer to the effect that the revenue
collections have exceeded the revenue targets. In this case, no such
certification was secured before unprogrammed funds were used.

V. Yes. The Doctrine of Operative Fact, which recognizes the legal effects of
an act prior to it being declared as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court,
is applicable. The DAP has definitely helped stimulate the economy. It has
funded numerous projects. If the Executive is ordered to reverse all actions
under the DAP, then it may cause more harm than good. The DAP effects
can no longer be undone. The beneficiaries of the DAP cannot be asked to
return what they received especially so that they relied on the validity of the
DAP. However, the Doctrine of Operative Fact may not be applicable to the
authors, implementers, and proponents of the DAP if it is so found in the
appropriate tribunals (civil, criminal, or administrative) that they have not
acted in good faith.