Case Digest (G.R. No. 209287)
Facts:
Maria Carolina P. Araullo, Chairperson, Bagong Alyansang Makabayan v. Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, G.R. Nos. 209287, 209135, 209136, 209155, 209164, 209260, 209442, 209517, 209569, February 03, 2015, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court.The consolidated cases arose from multiple petitions challenging the Executive’s Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) and National Budget Circular No. 541 (NBC No. 541). Petitioners included civil society organizations, party-list representatives, individual citizens, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and other groups; respondents were the President, the Executive Secretary, the Secretary of Budget and Management (DBM) and other Executive actors. The petitions alleged grave abuse of discretion and constitutional violations in how the Executive withdrew unobligated allotments, declared savings, realigned funds (including so-called “cross‑border” transfers), and released unprogrammed funds to finance projects not clearly covered by the General Appropriations Acts (GAAs).
The Supreme Court first issued a Decision on July 1, 2014 that held various acts and practices under the DAP/NBC No. 541 unconstitutional for violating Section 25(5), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and separation of powers, and applied the doctrine of operative fact to preserve certain DAP-funded projects. Respondents filed motions for reconsideration attacking jurisdiction, standing, and the Court’s statutory and constitutional constructions; petitioners in one docket filed a motion for partial reconsideration asking the Court to invalidate more expenditures. The motions re‑litigated procedural objections (mooted by the Court) and pressed substantive defenses (statutory interpretation of “savings,” reliance on Administrative Code provisions, and alleged executive authority to reallocate funds).
On February 3, 2015 the Court, En Banc, resolved the motions: it denied petitioners’ partial reconsideration and partially granted respondents’ motion to clarify and modify parts of the July 1, 2014 Decision, while reaffirming the core holdings that certain DAP practices were unconstitutional. Several justices filed separate opin...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the petitioners present a justiciable case or controversy and acquire standing to invoke the Court’s power to determine grave abuse of discretion by the Executive?
- Whether the withdrawal of unobligated allotments and the declaration of withdrawn allotments or unreleased appropriations as savings prior to fiscal‑year end, pursuant to NBC No. 541, comported with the statutory definition of savings in the GAAs and with the Constitution (Art. VI, Sec. 25(5)).
- Whether the Executive’s practice of effecting “cross‑border” transfers (augmenting items in other branches or outside the Executive) was constitutionally permissible.
- Whether augmentation under Section 25(5) may fund expense categories or allotment classes that had no appropriation in the GAA (i.e., whether an “item” for augmentation means an expense category/allotment class or the program/project as a whole).
- Whether releases from the Unprogrammed Fund were valid absent certification that revenue collections exceeded original revenue targets as required by the GAAs.
- Whether the Court misapplied the operative ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)