Araullo v. Hon.
President Aquino III government projects, and thus,
G.R. No. 209237
July 1, 2014
February 3, 2015
Section 25 (5), Article 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.
Section 29, Article VI of the 1987
Constitution - No money shall be paid
out of the Treasury except in
pursuance of an appropriation made
by law.
Facts:
Sen. Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada made a
revelation on September 25, 2013
claiming that he and some Senators
were given P50 Million each as
“incentive” in favor of Chief Justice
Renato Corona’s impeachment. In
response to that, Secretary Florencio
Abad of the DBM said that the money
was requested by the Senators for
funding and taken from Disbursement
Acceleration Program (DAP), a
program by DBM to stimulate the
Philippine economy. Basically, DAP
authorizes the Executive to withdraw
the money from slow moving projects
and declare that as “savings”. From
there, the “savings” will be allotted to
priority or fast-disbursing projects.
With that, it speeds the funding of
accelerated economic expansion as
reported by the Supreme Court. It was
also claimed in DBM’s website that
sources of DAP came from
unprogrammed funds by the Congress
under GAAs of 2011, 2012 and 2013.
Due to the revelation of Sen. Estrada
and reaction of Secretary Abad, the
DAP controversy angered the nation
and prompted nine petitions
criticizing its constitutionality. Maria
Carolina Araullo, Chairperson of
Bagong Alyansang Makabayan and
petitioner, along with other concerned
citizens argued that it was
unconstitutional as it violated the Sec.
29, Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution
that provided “No money shall be paid
out of the Treasury except in
pursuance of an appropriation made
by law.”
Secretary Abad pointed out that
“savings” have legal bases and these
were: Section 25 (5), Article VI of the
1987 Constitution; Section 49 and
Section 38, Chapter 5, Book VI of
Executive Order No. 292; and General
Appropriations Acts (GAAs) 2011,
2012 and 2013.
Issue:
I. Whether there is a
controversy ripe for judicial
determination and the
standing petitioners in
relation to NBC No. 541
II. Whether or not certiorari
and prohibition are proper
remedies to assail the
constitutionality and
validity of the NBC No. 541
III. Whether or not NBC No.
541 violates Section 25 (5)
 Art. IV of the 1987
Constitution
IV. Whether or not there is
factual and legal
justification to issue a
Temporary Restraining
Order against NBC No. 541
V. Whether or not DAP
violated Sec. 25 (5), Art. VI
of the 1987 Constitution.
VI. Whether or not the
Doctrine of Operative Fact
is applicable.
Held:
I. Yes. There is controversy in
the point where the
petitioner is incompatible,
specifically claiming the
unconstitutionality of NBC
No. 541, with that of the
respondents (the
Executive). In this light,
public funds have been
claimed by the petitioners
that allocated, disbursed or
utilized by reason or on
account of such executive
acts, present aptly the right
of the Court to adjudicate
on the cases whereby it has
jurisdiction over such cases
involving the grave abuse of
any branch of Government
of its appropriated duties
and functions.
II. Yes. In consideration of the
gravity of the issue which
centers in the Chief
Executive’s use of public
funds, whether
appropriated or not, the
Court then partially grants
for the certiorari and
prohibition so as to remove
the impediment in
addressing and resolving
the serious constitutional
questions raised.
III. Yes. GAAs of 2011 and 2012
lacked the valid provision
to which can authorize the
transfer of funds between
the branches of
government. Also, no
“savings” from which funds
can be derived from can be
sourced towards NBC No.
541 and as such, no funds
could derive from which
can be given to the missing
articles of the GAAs.
Moreover, cross-border of
funds from savings as done
are unconstitutional.
IV. Yes. In the absence of the
conditions on
unprogrammed funds, its
use would be declared as
void.
V. No. DAP is simply a
program, it is not a fund nor
appropriation. Besides,
there were no additional
funds withdrawn from the
Treasury because it merely
realigned the funds
appropriated for by the
GAA.
VI. Yes. The Doctrine of
Operative Fact, which
recognizes the existence of
law or executive act prior to
its unconstitutionality or
sustains the effects of void
law, is applicable. The
application to DAP
proceeds from equity, fair
play and good faith. Aside
from that, reversing the
actions under DAP may
cause more harm than
good. It has to be
remembered though that it
cannot apply to authors,
implementers and
proponents of DAP if there
are findings in the proper
tribunals (criminal, civil,
administrative and other
liabilities) that they have
not acted in good faith.