VOTING 13-0, the Supreme Court sustained its earlier decision declaring some acts undertaken under President Benigno Aquino III’s Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) as unconstitutional, but the Palace celebrated its decision to allow funding for programs and projects not covered by the national budget as “a de facto reversal.”
During its en banc session Tuesday, the justices turned down a Palace appeal to reconsider their decision in July 2014 declaring as unconstitutional the withdrawal of unobligated allotments from implementing agencies and their use as savings before the end of fiscal year as well as the cross-border transfers of savings of the executive to augment funds of agencies outside the executive department.
The Court also further declared as “void” the use of unprogrammed funds despite the absence of a certification by the national treasurer that the revenue collections exceeded the revenue targets for non-compliance with conditions provided in the relevant General Appropriations Act.
In rejecting the Palace motion for reconsideration, the Court ruled that the acts and practices under the DAP violated the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers and the provision prohibiting inter-branch transfer of appropriations.
Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno led the magistrates in upholding their earlier decision, but Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro and Francis Jardeleza inhibited themselves from the case.
The Court reversed its ruling on the act under DAP pertaining to the funding of projects, activities and programs that were not covered by any appropriation in the GAA, which was earlier declared unconstitutional.
In partially granting the motion for reconsideration of the executive department, the Court now declared this act as constitutional.
The justices sided with the argument of the Office of the Solicitor General that there is no constitutional requirement for Congress to create allotment classes within an item and that what is required only is for Congress to create items to comply with the line-item veto of the President.
“Accordingly, so long as there is an item in the GAA for which Congress had set aside a specified amount of public funds, savings may be transferred thereto for augmentation purposes,” the Court’s spokesman, Theodore Te, said.