Araullo vs Executive Secretary

Facts:
On 25 September 2013, Senator Jinggoy Estrada delivered a privileged speech before the Senate,
alleging that Senators had received an incentive worth P50 million for voting in favor of the
impeachment of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. This spurred Department of Budget
Management (DBM) Secretary Florencio Abad III to issue a statement that the funds released
were part of the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), which was designed by the DBM as
a stimulus package to increase government spending.
The DAP was allegedly first evidenced by a memorandum of Sec. Abad dated 12 October 2011,
asking for the Presidents approval for the implementation of the DAP. It listed sources of funds
amounting to P72.11 billion, along with proposed priority projects to be funded. The billions of
pesos for DAP, according to the DBM, were collected from the savings of the government and
its Unprogrammed Funds. The savings included:
(a) Unreleased appropriations for unfilled positions which will lapse at the end of the
year;
(b) Available balances from completed or discontinued projects;
(c) Unreleased appropriations of slow moving projects and discontinued projects; and
(d) Withdrawn unobligated allotments which have earlier been released to NGA
All these events gave rise to questions on the legality of this move by the DBM. Petitions were
filed before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the DAP, National
Budget Circular (NBC) No. 542, and related issuances of the Department of Budget and
Management (DBM) implementing the DAP.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the DAP violated the equal protection clause and the principle of separation
of powers
2. Whether or not the doctrine of operative fact should apply to projects funded by the DAP

Held:
1. The Court ruled that the argument that the DAP was used to discriminate against some
legislators lacks factual and legal basis. Also, it pointed that it was merely speculative to
conclude that the DAP effectively stayed the hands of legislators from conducting inquires on
the executive department.
2. It depends. The doctrine of operative fact shall apply to government projects that can no
longer be undone and with beneficiaries who relied on the DAP in good faith. However, it
cannot apply to authors of the DAP, unless there are concrete findings of good faith.