Case Digest (G.R. No. 209287) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
On July 1, 2014, the Supreme Court, Second Division sitting En Banc, resolved nine consolidated Rule 65 petitions filed directly before it: G.R. Nos. 209135 (Syjuco), 209136 (Luna), 209155 (Villegas), 209164 (PHILCONSA), 209260 (IBP), 209287 (Araullo), 209442 (Belgica), 209517 (COURAGE), and 209569 (VACC). Petitioners, including various civic groups, party-list representatives, academics and youth organizations, assailed the legality and constitutionality of the Executive’s Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), National Budget Circular No. 541, and related DBM memoranda. Respondents were President Benigno S. Aquino III, Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa Jr., Budget Secretary Florencio B. Abad, Senate President Franklin Drilon, House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr., and other high-ranking officials. Petitioners claimed that in late 2011 and through 2013 the DBM had withdrawn unreleased and unobligated appropriations, pooled them without congressional authorization, and diver Case Digest (G.R. No. 209287) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties
- Petitioners – Various citizens, taxpayers, civil society groups, party‐list representatives, and associations.
- Respondents – Benigno S. Aquino III (President), Paquito N. Ochoa Jr. (Executive Secretary), Florencio B. Abad (Budget Secretary), and related officials.
- Genesis of Controversy
- In 2011–12 the Philippine economy slowed; government underspending in infrastructure was cited by the World Bank.
- To accelerate growth, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) created the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) pooling “savings” and unprogrammed funds to finance priority projects.
- Late 2013 Senate privilege speeches revealed extra releases to legislators; DBM officials publicly explained these were DAP disbursements.
- Relevant Issuances
- DBM memoranda (October 2011–September 2013) granting the President omnibus authority to consolidate savings and realign funds.
- National Budget Circular No. 541 (July 18, 2012) – Withdraws unobligated allotments of agencies as of June 30, 2012, for reallocation to priority projects.
- 2011–2013 General Appropriations Acts – Define “savings,” “augmentation,” availability of funds, unprogrammed fund conditions, and prohibition on impoundment.
Issues:
- Procedural
- Are certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus proper remedies?
- Do petitioners have standing, and is there a ripe justiciable controversy?
- Substantive
- Does the DAP violate Art. VI, Sec. 29(1) (“no money paid out except by appropriation”)?
- Does the DAP violate Art. VI, Sec. 25(5) (general prohibition on transfers and limited power to augment “from savings”)?
- Were the funds truly “savings”?
- Were items funded existed in the GAAs?
- Were there cross‐border transfers of savings?
- Were unprogrammed funds released contrary to GAA conditions?
- Were the principles of equal protection, checks and balances, and public accountability breached by legislative requests?
- Are the petitions in time to warrant a temporary restraining order?
- Does the doctrine of operative fact preserve executed projects?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)