Case Summary (G.R. No. 206794)
Issues Framed
- Do these lump-sum appropriations violate the doctrine on non-delegability of legislative power?
- Do they impair the President’s item-veto power and separation of powers?
- Do they fail the constitutional requirements for valid appropriation and compliance with EO 292?
Procedural Considerations
Actual Case or Controversy and Ripeness
– The petition challenges implementable budget provisions that affect taxpayer interests and have concrete release mechanisms. Ripeness is satisfied.
Mootness Exception
– Despite lapse of FY 2014, the issues implicate paramount public interest, require controlling principles, and are capable of repetition yet evading review.
Rule on Singular Correspondence Clarified
The 2013 Belgica decision invalidated lump-sum appropriations that combine multiple unrelated purposes under one undelineated sum and permit legislators or executive agents to allocate funds post-enactment, thereby evading item veto and violating non-delegability. It did not hold that all lump-sum appropriations are per se unconstitutional. Appropriations with a specified singular purpose—or a lump-sum fund whose multiple authorized purposes are sufficiently related and clearly described—remain valid items subject to item veto.
Analysis of the Unprogrammed Fund
The Unprogrammed Fund is detailed in Annex “A” of the 2014 GAA. It allocates P139,903,759,000 among discrete purposes (e.g., support to GOCCs; AFP modernization; disaster relief), each with a corresponding amount. This structure satisfies singular correspondence: each subdivision is a specified appropriation of money for a specific purpose, allowing Presidential item veto or conditional implementation under Section 63 of the General Provisions and EO 292. The fund is not a prohibited lump-sum but a standby appropriation for excess revenues directed to enumerated objectives.
Analysis of the Contingent Fund
The P1 billion Contingent Fund is appropriated to meet new or urgent projects and augment Presidential travel. Historical practice shows legitimate unforeseeable uses (e.g., plebiscites, Y2K readiness). As held in 2013 Belgica, it constitutes a valid appropriation item despite its lump-sum nature because it states a clear purpose—addressing contingencies—and a definite amount. It passed singular correspondence review and remains subject to item veto.
Analysis of the E-Government Fund
The E-Government Fund (P2,478.9 million) finances cross-agency ICT projects in public finance, education, health, justice, and other priority sectors. Guided by inter-agency criteria and the ICTO-DOST/DBM/NEDA Joint Memorandum Circular, the fund’s purposes are sufficiently specific. Its lump-sum format accommodates emergent strategic ICT initiatives and preserves item veto through clear definitions of scope and release conditions under EO 292.
Analysis of the Local Government Support Fund
The LGSF (P405 milli
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 206794)
Facts
- November 19, 2013: This Court’s Decision in Belgica v. Ochoa, Jr. declared the 2013 PDAF Article and related “pork barrel” provisions unconstitutional for violating separation of powers, non-delegability, and the President’s item-veto power.
- December 27, 2013: Republic Act No. 10633 (2014 GAA) enacted, funding government operations for fiscal year 2014, including “lump-sum discretionary funds.”
- January 13, 2014: Petitioner Greco Antonious Beda B. Belgica filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition challenging the 2014 GAA’s lump-sum appropriations—the Unprogrammed Fund, the Contingent Fund, the E-Government Fund, and the Local Government Support Fund—as unconstitutional.
- A status quo ante order was issued to prevent disbursement of the contested funds pending resolution.
Issues
- Are the lump-sum appropriations in the 2014 GAA unconstitutional for:
- Violating the doctrine on non-delegability of legislative power?
- Undermining the essence of separation of powers (checks and balances) and the democratic process?
- Failing to meet the constitutional requirements of a valid appropriation, the President’s line-item veto power, and the Administrative Code of 1987 (EO 292)?
Procedural Issues
- Petitioner invoked certiorari under Rule 65 to secure judicial review of the 2014 GAA provisions.
- Judicial review requirements:
- Actual case or controversy involving enforceable rights and a threatened or actual injury.
- Standing: a personal and substantial interest in preventing misapplication of public funds.
- Issue of constitutionality raised at the earliest opportunity as the very lis mota of the case.
- Ripeness: Challenging implementation of allegedly unconstitutional provisions is ripe if public funds may be misapplied to cause taxpayer injury.
- Mootness: Although fiscal year 2014 has lapsed, the case falls under exceptions—paramount public interest, need for controlling principles to guide future budgets, and the case being capable of repetition yet evading review.
Rule on Singular Correspondence (2013 Belgica Case)
- An “item of appropriation” must be characterized by singular correspondence:
- A specified single amount for a specified single purpose (a “line-item”).
- Ensures a discernible item over which the President may exercise the line-item veto.
- Valid line-item appropriations may include several related sub-purposes (e.g., MOOE) when they clearly fall under one singular appropriation purpose.