|GARCIA, MARIA REYLAN, M.

1350017
Araullo, et. Al vs. President Aquino, et. Al
GR Nos. 209287, 209135, 209136, 209155, 209164, 209260, 209442, 209517, 209568
Promulgated: July 1, 2014
OVERVIEW
Senator Jinggoy Estrada delivered a privileged speech alleging that P50 million was given as incentive
for senators who voted to impeach former Chief Justice Renato Corona. Department of Budget Management
Secretary Florencio Abad then explained to the public that such incentive was actually part of the executive
branchs Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP for brevity). DAP was conceived to expedite economic
expansion by resolving sluggish disbursements hampering the countrys GDP (gross domestic product). The
DAP funds were taken from the following sources: (1) unreleased appropriations under Personnel Services; (2)
unprogrammed funds; (3) carry-over appropriations unreleased from the previous year; and (4) budgets for
slow-moving items or projects that had been realigned to support faster-disbursing projects.
Nine petitions were then filed to assail the constitutionality of DAP and its accompanying issuances.
ISSUES
1. Whether or not DAP violates Sec. 29, Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution, which provides: "No money shall be
paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law."
2. Whether or not the DAP, NBC No. 541, and all other executive issuances allegedly implementing the DAP
violate Sec. 25(5), Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution (No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of
appropriations; however, the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may,
by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from
savings in other items of their respective appropriations.)
SC DECISION
1. The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. DAP does not need an enacting legislation to be valid because it
is not an appropriation measure. It is a program or an administrative system of prioritizing spending; and that
the adoption of the DAP was by virtue of the authority of the President as the Chief Executive to ensure that
laws were faithfully executed. Furthermore, the President, faithful to his duty to execute laws, has the
discretion to adapt the budget to meet the changes in the countrys economic situation. DAP is within the
scope of such discretion.
2. The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. DAP violated the Constitution by considering unreleased
appropriations and withdrawn unobligated allotments under the DAP as savings; that there were invalid
transfers due to lack of authorizing provisions in the General Appropriations Act (GAA); that the savings were
transferred to augment deficient items not provided by the GAA; and, that there were illegal cross-border
transfers or transfers beyond the respective offices of the heads allowed by the Constitution to augment items
in the GAA [Section 25(5), Art. VI, 1987 Constitution]
DAP IN CORRELATION TO SEC.39 ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
Sec. 39, Chapter 5, Book VI, provides that except as otherwise provided in the General Appropriations
Act, any savings in the regular appropriations authorized in the General Appropriations Act for programs and
projects of any department, office or agency, may, with the approval of the President, be used to cover a deficit
in any other item of the regular appropriations. Although at first glance it may seem that the Presidents power
to augment is applicable to any department, office or agency even outside of the executive branch, EO 292
(Administrative Code) must be interpreted in consonance with a higher law, the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
There is a constitutional limitation, under Section 25(5), Art. VI, to the power of the President to augment or
transfer funds. He can only do so within the agencies under the executive department.
OPINION
I agree with the decision of the Supreme Court as it was able to prevent the propagation of ultra vires
acts of fund transfers but at the same time affirm to the public that the intentions and the existence of the
Disbursement Acceleration Program is legal and not contrary to the Constitution. How the DAP was carried
was the only problem. The Supreme Court did not fail to consider how DAP had accelerated, is accelerating
and may accelerate the sloth-like economic programs. In a country where governmental red tape is
omnipresent, efforts in speeding up governmental services are both novel and noble. Nevertheless, their
legitimate implementation must also be taken into accord.