Case Summary (G.R. No. 158791)
Differentiation Between Automatic Appropriation and Automatic Release
– Automatic appropriation: a congressionally fixed budget percentage (objected to by Commissioner Ople).
– Automatic release: executive duty to disburse approved funds without further legislative or executive trimming (endorsed by Commissioner Monsod).
DBM’s Cash Payment Schedule Mechanism
DBM prepares an Agency Budget Matrix (ABM) and issues allotments as obligation ceilings. Entities with fiscal autonomy receive full‐amount allotments “not needing clearance.” Monthly Notices of Cash Allocation (NCAs) then fund allotments according to actual revenue collections, borrowings, deficit ceilings and disbursement programs. Shortfalls in revenue trigger proportional reductions across all agencies under this cash‐management regime.
Court’s Rejection of Proportional Reduction Policy
The Court held that revenue shortfalls do not justify proportionate withholding of autonomously appropriated funds. The DBM retains discretion to fully fund fiscal-autonomous agencies despite overall deficit, especially where such agencies account for less than 3% of the national budget. Any policy that reduces approved appropriations contravenes the constitutional mandate of automatic release.
Legislative Intent in the FY 2002 GAA (R.A. No. 9162, Sections 62–64)
Sections 62 and 63 address impoundment and unmanageable deficit broadly, while Section 64 specifically protects fiscal‐autonomous agencies from retention or reduction. Congressman Andaya’s sponsorship speech criticized general impoundment powers but did not override the explicit carve-out for autonomous entities. References to local government units in Section 63 do not extend reduction authority to constitutional commissions.
Interpretation of the 1993 Resolution on Judiciary Fiscal Autonomy
The Court’s A.M. No. 92-9-029-SC Resolution mandated automatic and regular release of judicial appropriations “subject to availability of funds.” This qualification acknowledges timing and scheduling but does not pe
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 158791)
Facts
- The Civil Service Commission (CSC) challenged the Department of Budget and Management’s (DBM) implementation of its cash payment schedule, which resulted in a proportional reduction of the CSC’s approved appropriations.
- The Supreme Court granted CSC’s petition in a Decision dated July 22, 2005, holding that fiscal autonomy requires preference in cash allocation.
- DBM filed a Motion for Reconsideration contesting the Court’s interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions governing fiscal autonomy and the release of appropriations.
Procedural History
- Petition before the Supreme Court en banc was granted by Decision on July 22, 2005.
- DBM moved for reconsideration, assailing interpretations of:
• Article IX(A) § 5 of the 1987 Constitution (fiscal autonomy of constitutional commissions)
• Articles VIII § 3 of the Constitution (automatic release for the Judiciary)
• Sections 62, 63, and 64 of the FY 2002 GAA (R.A. No. 9162)
• The Court’s June 3, 1993 Resolution in A.M. No. 92-9-029-SC on judicial fiscal autonomy - En banc Resolution denying the Motion issued on February 10, 2006.
Constitutional and Statutory Provisions
- 1987 Constitution, Article IX(A) § 5: Grants fiscal autonomy to constitutional commissions and forbids reduction of their appropriations below the previous year’s level.
- 1987 Constitution, Article VIII § 3: Mandates that appropriations for the Judiciary “shall be automatically and regularly released.”
- R.A. No. 9162 (FY 2002 GAA), Sections 62–64:
• § 62: Restricts impoundment of appropriations generally
• § 63: Defines “unmanageable national government deficit” to guide reductions of Internal Revenue Allotments (IRAs) of LGUs
• § 64: Specifically applies to agencies with fiscal autonomy
DBM’s Contentions
- The Court misinterpreted the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission regarding fiscal autonomy.
- Commissioner Blas Ople objected only to “automatic