Title
Araullo vs. Aquino III
Case
G.R. No. 209287
Decision Date
Feb 3, 2015
Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), arguing it violated separation of powers and the President's limited authority to reallocate funds without Congressional approval. The Supreme Court ruled key DAP practices unconstitutional, emphasizing strict adherence to constitutional limits on executive power.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 209287)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Consolidated Cases
    • Petitioners: Various civic groups, legislators, professional associations and individuals (including BAYAN, Gabriela, Kabataan Party-list, Anakbayan, IBP, Philconsa, VACC), represented by diverse persons.
    • Respondents: President Noynoy Aquino III, Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr., DBM Secretary Florencio Abad, Senate President Franklin Drilon, House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr., other executive and legislative officials.
    • Cases: Consolidation of G.R. Nos. 209287, 209135, 209136, 209155, 209164, 209260, 209442, 209517, 209569 dealing with the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) and National Budget Circular No. 541 (NBC 541).
  • Procedural Posture
    • July 1, 2014 Decision: Declared key acts and practices under the DAP and NBC 541 unconstitutional (motions to reconsider filed by respondents and petitioners).
    • Motions:
      • Respondents – Motion for Reconsideration raising procedural (lack of case or controversy, standing) and substantive (meaning of “savings,” authority to transfer and augment funds) arguments.
      • Petitioners in G.R. No. 209442 – Motion for Partial Reconsideration to declare unconstitutional augmentations not based on actual deficiencies.
  • Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP)
    • Aim: Stimulate economy by reallocating “savings,” unobligated allotments, and unprogrammed funds to priority programs, including across branches (“cross-border transfers”).
    • Implementation: Withdrawal of unobligated allotments pursuant to NBC 541; augmentation of 116 identified projects and legislators’ PDAF; release of unprogrammed funds without certification of surplus.

Issues:

  • Judicial Review and Justiciability
    • Whether petitioners presented a justiciable case or controversy and have standing to seek relief.
    • Whether the Supreme Court properly exercised its power of judicial review, including its expanded certiorari jurisdiction to remedy grave abuse of discretion.
  • Constitutionality of DAP Actions
    • Whether withdrawals of unobligated allotments and unreleased appropriations constitute “savings” under the GAA and NBC 541.
    • Whether the cross-border transfers of “savings” to augment appropriations of offices outside the Executive violate Art. VI, Sec. 25(5) of the Constitution.
    • Whether augmentations were properly made only to existing appropriation items and out of actual deficiencies.
    • Whether the release and use of unprogrammed funds without certification of aggregate revenue collections exceeding original targets contravene the GAA.
  • Application of the Operative Fact Doctrine
    • Whether the effects of the unconstitutional DAP should be invalidated en masse or preserved in equity for third-party beneficiaries in good faith.
    • Whether authors, proponents and implementors of the DAP may invoke the doctrine of operative fact to escape potential liability.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.