This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC
MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO, Chairperson, Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, JUDY M. TAGUIWALO, Professor, University of the Philippines Diliman, CoChairperson, Pagbabago, HENRI KAHN, Concerned Citizens Movement, REP. LUZ ILAGAN, Gabriela Women’s Party Representative, REP. TERRY L. RIDON, Kabataan Partylist Representative, REP. CARLOS ISAGANI ZARATE, Bayan Muna Party-list Representative, RENATO M. REYES, JR., Secretary General of BAYAN, MANUEL K. DAYRIT, Chairman, Ang Kapatiran Party, VENCER MARI E. CRISOSTOMO, Chairperson, Anakbayan, VICTOR L. VILLANUEVA, Convenor, Youth Act Now, Petitioners, -versusGR No. ________ Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction
BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, President of the Republic of the Philippines, PAQUITO N. OCHOA JR., Executive Secretary, and FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management, Respondents. x-------------------------------------------------------x
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION WITH PRAYER FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Petitioners, by counsels, unto the Honorable Supreme Court, most respectfully state that:
PREFATORY "For the love of money is the root of all evil: ..." and money belonging to no one in particular, i.e. public funds, provide an even greater temptation for misappropriation and embezzlement. This, evidently, was foremost in the minds of the framers of the constitution in meticulously prescribing the rules regarding the appropriation and disposition of public funds as embodied in Sections 16 and 18 of Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution. Hence, the conditions on the release of money from the treasury [Sec. 18(1)]; the restrictions on the use of public funds for public purpose [Sec. 18(2)]; the prohibition to transfer an appropriation for an item to another [See. 16(5) and the requirement of specifications [Sec. 16(2)], among others, were all safeguards designed to forestall abuses in the expenditure of public funds. (Demetria v. Alba, G.R. No. 71977 February 27, 1987)
PARTIES Petitioners _________ 1. All of the petitioners are of legal age and Filipinos, and suing in their capacity as concerned citizens, taxpayers and legislators, to wit: a. MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO is the Chairperson of Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN); b. JUDY M. TAGUIWALO is a Professor of the University of the Philippines Diliman and also the Co-Chairperson of Pagbabago; c. HENRI KAHN is a member of the Concerned Citizens Movement; d. REP. LUZ ILAGAN is Gabriela Women’s Party Representative for the 16th Congress; e. REP. TERRY L. RIDON is Kabataan Partylist Representative for the 16th Congress; f. REP. CARLOS ZARATE is Bayan Muna Party-list Representative for the 16th Congress; g. MANUEL K. DAYRIT is the Chairman, of the Ang Kapatiran Party; h. VENCER MARI E. CRISOSTOMO is the Chairperson of Anakbayan; i. VICTOR L. VILLANUEVA is the Convenor of Youth Act Now.
Public Respondent PAQUITO N. possesses locus standi. San Miguel. Manila. President of the Republic of the Philippines. and other processes of this Honorable Court. Executive Secretary. His office is at the Office of the Executive Secretary. where he may be served notices. and other processes of this Honorable Court. New Executive Building. Petitioners are filing this Petition against Public Respondents in accordance with this Honorable Court’s ruling in Paguia vs. ABAD is the Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management under the executive department. Manila.. As taxpayers. which is defined as a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged. All petitioners may be served notices. J. NATURE OF THE PETITION 8. New Executive Building. Office of the President (621 SCRA 600) that taxpayers’ contributions to the state’s coffers entitle them to question appropriations for expenditures which are claimed to be unconstitutional or illegal. Ridon and Zarate are also suing as Members of the House of Representatives. and other processes of this Honorable Court. Public Respondent FLORENCIO B. Malacanang Palace. His office is at the Office of the President. Petitioners Ilagan. 7. J. Laurel St.P. San Miguel.P. orders.. 3 . is the primary alter ego of the President who is the head of the executive department with the duty to implement the laws of the land. 6.. orders. Public Respondent BENIGNO SIMEON C. where he may be served notices. orders. Laurel St. Malacanang Palace. His office is at General Solano St. orders.3 2. AQUINO III. OCHOA JR.. This is a special civil action for Certiorari and Prohibition. 4. with application for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction. and other processes of this Honorable Court at the address of the undersigned counsels. San Miguel. brought under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Public Respondents _________________ 5. 3. Manila. where he may be served notices.
(Emphasis ours) 10. to “Augment existing programs and projects of other agencies” and Fund priority programs and projects not considered in the 2012 budget but expected to be started or implemented within the current year”. because this no longer pertains to the wisdom or discretionary act of a public official. The resolution of the issue whether NBC Circular 541 or the DAP violates the Constitution. Florencio Abad and realigned. The Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) is officially embodied in the DBM National Budget Circular No. 12. have not been completed. Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. 13. in blatant defiance of the Constitution and the General Appropriations Act passed by Congress. 2012 “the withdrawal of all unobligated allotments of all agencies with low level of obligations as of June 30. the EO 292 or the Administrative Code and the appropriations law is surely not political. the President ordered on June 27. In filing this Petition. which provides: Section 1.4 9. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable. but also the judicial power of this Honorable Court under Section 1. Petitioners contend that said funds could not be artificially deemed as “savings” as defined by the DBM and the General Appropriations Act of 2012 since there could be not “savings” in the middle of a fiscal year. The said “withdrawn funds” were deemed as “savings by Pres. 1 Attached as Annex “A” 4 . 541 1 dated July 18. 2012 which declared that due to the “under-spending of various agencies”. 2012 both for continuing and current allotment” 11. Benigno S. especially if the projects or programs for which these funds were allocated by law. discontinued or abandoned. Aquino and DBM Sec. Petitioner is not only invoking the power of this Honorable Court to strike down acts that violate the Constitution. and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. Rather the issue in this case is the constitutionality and legality of withdrawing funds from duly-enacted budgetary allocations and then realigning these funds to other budgetary items including those that were not even provided under the General Appropriations Act. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.
but also. as ex officio Chairman. practically grants the President the power to approve these appropriations instead of Congress. The discussion in Daza vs. the constitutional checks and balances required in a republican system of government. whether in the budget or off-budget which are considered “Presidential Pork”—can never be deemed a political issue as it strikes deep into the constitutional power of Congress to approve the national budget. There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President of the Senate. 86344 December 21. 16. 17.R. Petitioners believe that this Honorable Court has the power. and more importantly the duty. the general issue of the constitutionality of the “pork barrel”—both the PDAF and the lump sum funds. thus: At the core of this controversy is Article VI. 19. Additionally. to resolve these issues if only eliminate a scourge in the disposition of public funds that have so long been a source of graft and corruption and patronage politics. Both these issues are not questions of wisdom (even if Petitioners believe this kind of budgeting process is surely not wise) but touches on the violation of the constitutional canalization of the powers of the executive and the legislative and.5 14. of the Constitution providing as follows: Sec. Are lump sum amounts in the budget. 18. 1989) regarding judicial powers of this Honorable Court is very enlightening. which ceased to be merely in the nature of a contingency fund considering that these amounts are so substantial that these are larger than if not equal to the regular budget of the agencies. We define “pork barrel” as public funds. 18. Are acts of legislators in intervening in the implementation or execution of the General Appropriations Act through the mechanism of selection of projects and/or its beneficiaries constitutional and legal? Petitioners contend that not only does such intervention go beyond the constitutional mandate of Congress but also compromise the integrity of Congress’ role as the approving authority of the budget. Singson (G. Section 18. twelve Senators and twelve Members of the House of 5 . No. constitutional? Lump sum amounts in the budget not only makes it impossible for Congress to be apprised of what items in the budget they are approving. the disposition of which is subject solely to the discretion of the pork holder as to the selection of the projects and the beneficiaries. 15. usually in lump sum amounts.
the Court was asked by the petitioners therein to annul the election of two members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal of that chamber. the Nacionalista Party could nominate only three members and could not also fill the other two seats pertaining to the minority.. The Chairman of the Commission shall not vote. What is involved here is the legality. The petitioner came to this Court.. "three upon nomination of the party having the largest number of votes and three of the party having the second largest number of votes therein. In the aforementioned case. we hold that. The Commission shall act on all appointments submitted to it within thirty session days of the Congress from their submission. as Chief Justice Concepcion explained in Tanada v. That is not a political question because. under the Constitution. from its own ranks. elected by each House on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein." It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom.6 Representatives. Our finding is that what is before us is not a discretionary act of the House of Representatives that may not be reviewed by us because it is political in nature. a question of policy. it refers "to those questions which.. whereupon the majority elected Senators Mariano J. not legality. and Francisco Delgado. 6 . to complete the nine-man composition of the Tribunal as provided for in the 1935 Constitution. of a particular measure. the term "political question" connotes. or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Legislature or executive branch of the Government. Cuenco. The Commission shall rule by a majority vote of all the Members. Ruling first on the jurisdictional issue. By way of special and affirmative defenses. contending that under Article VI. Tanada nominated only himself as the minority representative in the Tribunal.." As the majority party in the Senate. in legal parlance. on the ground that they had not been validly nominated. of the act of that chamber in removing the petitioner from the Commission on Appointments. not the wisdom. the respondents contended inter alia that the subject of the petition was an 6 . contrary to the respondent's assertion. Section 11. the six legislative members of the Tribunal were to be chosen by the Senate. of that Charter. except in case of a tie. the Court has the competence to act on the matter at bar. are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity. In other words. . The Senate then consisted of 23 members from the Nacionalista Party and the petitioner as the lone member of the Citizens Party. Cuenco. Senator Lorenzo M. what it means in ordinary parlance. namely.
therefore. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable. The reason is that. Tan as it likewise involved the manner or legality of the organization of the Commission on Appointments. Commission on Elections." The same policy has since then been consistently followed by the Court. the same disposition was made in Cunanan v. even if we were to assume that the issue presented before us was political in nature. technicalities of procedure. 8where we held through Chief Justice Fernando: Xxxx The language of justice Laurel fits the case: "All await the decision of this Court on the constitutional question. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. the importance which the instant case has assumed and to prevent multiplicity of suits. holding that what was involved was not the wisdom of the Senate in choosing the respondents but the legality of the choice in light of the requirement of the Constitution. we would still not be precluded from resolving it under the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon us that now covers. as in Gonzales v.. "the transcendental importance to the public of these cases demands that they be settled promptly and definitely brushing aside. x x x. if we must. in proper cases. Section 1. of the Constitution clearly provides: Section 1. be now resolved. The petitioners were questioning the manner of filling the Tribunal. we have held as early as in the Emergency Powers Cases 7 that where serious constitutional questions are involved. not the wisdom or discretion of the House in the choice of its representatives.7 internal matter that only the Senate could resolve. strong reasons of public policy demand that [its] constitutionality .. Considering. In the case now before us.' It may likewise be added that the exceptional character of the situation 7 . Article VIII. even the political question. and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. The Court held that this was a justiciable and not a political question. not the discretion of the Senate in doing so. the jurisdictional objection becomes even less tenable and decisive. The Court rejected this argument. x x x X x x Although not specifically discussed.
DepEd. the Honorable Court ought to exercise judicial review over this Petition. 8 . Neri Colmenares of Bayan Muna Party-list inquired from the DBM Secretary. STATEMENT OF FACTS 21.8 that confronts us. On September 25. Moreover. Abad maintained that it is only intended to be realigned for existing projects anyway. DOH. of overarching significance to society. 2013 Senator Jinggoy Estrada revealed in his Privilege Speech that he and other senators. were offered P50 Million each in exchange for a vote of conviction against Corona. therefore. Abad informed the Appropriations Committee that NBC 541 is intended to accelerate disbursement under a then unknown “Disbursement Acceleration Program” (DAP hereafter) by withdrawing unobligated allotments from “underspending” agencies. DAR. the national elections being barely six months away. On August 5. that before us is an appropriate invocation of our jurisdiction to prevent the enforcement of an alleged unconstitutional statute. we must act on the matter. Sec. Sec. It would appear undeniable. DSWD. because the questioned executive acts are a matter of transcendental importance. 20. When asked by Rep. and the undeniable necessity for ruling. DPWH. 24. He confirmed that these funds came from slow moving agencies particularly the DENR. and of paramount public interest. and the DA. He further stated that if the withdrawn funds will be spent on projects not contained in the General Appropriations Act then indeed it would be unconstitutional. DOTC. When Sec. 2013 during the official budget deliberation of the Development Budget Coordination Committee (DBCC) and the Department of Budget Management (DBM) Rep. Colmenares whether NBC 541 is constitutional considering that authorizes withdrawal of funds midyear and realigns it to other projects. 23. 22. then siting as senator-judges in the Impeachment Trial of former Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona. Abad was again asked how much was already withdrawn and realigned under DAP he answered that P75 Billion was realigned in 2011 and another P27 Billion in 2012. the paramount public interest. 541 (NBC 541 hereafter). reinforce our stand. Respondent Florencio Abad about the nature of the DBM National Budget Circular No. We are left with no choice then.
Neri Colmenares again inquired about NBC 541 from the Office of the President. In his speech. offered senators P100 Million worth of projects in exchange for defying the Supreme Court temporary restraining order on the opening of bank accounts under Corona’s name. It turned out a year after that there is basis for Atty. 28. 2012 by the DBM. On September 27. through Pres. Estrada dubbed the additional amount as “incentive” for Corona’s ouster. then represented by Respondent Ochoa and on the floor by Appropriations Committee Chairman Rep. According to Sec.9 25.0 Coverage 3. Rep. 10155) xxx 9 . Roy was cited for contempt and reprimanded by the Impeachment Court for making such a claim. Colmenares was informed by Respondent Ochoa that indeed the Disbursement Acceleration Program exists but it was intended to realign funds from under-spending agencies in order to accelerate growth. 2013. thereby confirming not only that the DAP exists but also that it was with the approval of Pres.10147) and FY 2012 Current Appropriation (RA No. Roy’s expose. his lawyer Atty. Aquino’s Executive Secretary. Aquino.1 These guidelines shall cover the withdrawal of unobligated allotments as of June 30. during the Plenary Deliberation for the approval of the 2014 Budget on Second Reading. as provided in a private and confidential letter memorandum by the then Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. Atty. 29. Pertinent provisions are as follows: 3. Isidro Ungab. It will be recalled that at the height of the Impeachment Trial against Corona in February 2012. Rep. but were necessary to “help accelerate economic expansion”. 2012 of all national government agencies (NGAs) charged against FY 2011 Continuing Appropriation (RA No. 26. Estrada and said that the same came from the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP). This NBC 541 was issued on July 18. Respondent Paquito Ochoa. Abad these funds were not bribes. claimed that Malacanang. On September 28. 2013 Sec. Jose Roy. 27. Estrada said that after the conviction of Corona in May 2012. those who voted to convict him were allotted an additional P50 Million. Abad issued a statement through the DBM website explaining the purpose of the additional fund releases to senators as mentioned in the speech of Sen.
5.7. however. Frequently Asked Quest !ns" a#a la$le at htt%&''((()d$*)+!#)%h'. projects and activities of the departments/agencies reflected in the DBM list shown as Annex A or specific programs and projects as may be identified by the agencies.7.7 The withdrawn allotments may be: 5. The DAP was approved by the President on October 12.3 Used to augment existing programs and projects of any agency and to fund priority programs and projects not considered in the 2012 budget but expected to be started or implemented during the current year.%a+e.7. the Disbursement Acceleration Program has been implemented and the Executive has been withdrawing funds and realigning appropriations approved by Congress. (Emphasis theirs) 30.10 3. xxx 5. 1. The DBM website 2 as well as the Official Gazette website3 published the following information on the DAP: Frequently Asked Questions about the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) A. About the DAP What is DAP? The Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) is a stimulus package under the Aquino administration designed to fast-track public spending and push economic growth.d. long before the issuance of DBM National Budget Circular 541.2 Realigned to cover additional funding for other existing programs and projects of the agency/OU. This covers highimpact budgetary programs and projects which will be augmented out of the savings generated during the year and additional revenue sources.7362) /ast accessed 0ct!$er 11" 2013 3 Q1A !n the 2 s$urse*ent Accelerat !n 3r!+ra*" %u$l shed !n 0ct!$er 7" 2013" a#a la$le at htt%&''((()+!#)%h'2013'10'07'qa4!n4the4d s$urse*ent4 accelerat !n4%r!+ra*') /ast accessed 0ct!$er 11" 2013 10 2 .2 The withdrawal of unobligated allotments may cover the identified programs. or 5. 2011 upon the recommendation of the Development Budget Coordination Committee (DBCC) and the Cabinet Clusters. that in 2011.1 Reissued for the original programs and projects of the agencies/OUs concerned. from which the allotments were withdrawn. The DBM in its website admits.
the amount was used to provide additional funds for programs/projects such as healthcare.70 Billion is for 2012. and 2013? For 2011-2012. and the Disaster Risk and Exposure Assessment for Mitigation (DREAM) program of DOST. of which P83. rehabilitation of Light Rail Transit and Metro Rail Transit. public works. 2012. a total of P142. While the economy has generally improved in 2012 and 2013. among others. In 2011. Amounts and Purposes Funded through DAP 1. and funding for the Typhoon Pablo rehabilitation projects for Compostela Valley and Davao Oriental. b) Urgent or priority in terms of social and economic development objectives. 2. among others. The need to accelerate public spending was also brought about by the global economic situation as well as the financial toll of calamities in that year. additional funds for the modernization of PNP. e.11 2. were moving slowly. rehabilitation and extension of light rail transit systems.23 Billion was released for programs and projects identified through the DAP. most notably public infrastructure. the redevelopment of Roxas Boulevard. these were used to augment tourism road infrastructure. in the context of the prevailing underspending in government disbursements for the first eight months of 2011 that dampened the country’s economic growth. the payment of obligations incurred from premium subsidy for indigent families in the National Health Insurance Program. school infrastructure. What kind of projects are funded through the DAP? The programs and projects submitted to the DBM must meet the following conditions: a) Fast-moving or quick-disbursing. While in 2012. housing and resettlement.53 Billion is for 2011 and 58. Such government intervention was needed as key programs and projects.g. B. In 2013. the use of DAP was continued to sustain the pace of public spending as well as economic expansion. about P15. the upgrading of equipment and facilities for specialty hospitals. e. What was the context when DAP was introduced? The DAP was conceptualized in September 2011 and introduced in October 2011.13 Billion has been approved for the hiring of policemen. 11 . How much were the programs and projects funded through DAP in 2011. and agriculture.g. and sitio electrification.
which have earlier been released to national government agencies. and b) the withdrawal of unobligated allotments. sale of government assets. Of the total DAP approved by OP for 2011-2012 amounting to a total of P142. such as capital infusion for the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (R. unexpected remittance of dividends from the GOCCs and Government Financial Institutions (GFIs). DBM ensured that programs and projects funded through DAP have an 12 . C.g. In line with laws on the use of savings (see below). Some of the items funded through the DAP are expenditures which are mandated by law. How much were the programs and projects that were endorsed by legislators? The legislators have also endorsed programs and projects for the social and economic benefit of their constituents. 3. unreleased appropriations of slow moving projects and discontinued projects per Zero-Based Budgeting findings. also for slowmoving programs and projects. such as medical assistance and local infrastructure projects.23 Billion only 9 percent was released to programs and projects identified by legislators.g. The proposals were funded through DAP as they are existing budgetary items in the GAA and compliant with the conditions stated above. Sourcing of Funds for DAP How were funds sourced? Funds used for programs and projects identified through DAP were sourced from savings generated by the government. 7653.12 c) Programs or projects performing well and could deliver more services to the public with the additional funds e. 2. e. the realignment of which is subject to the approval of the President. These were not released directly to legislators but to implementing agencies.. 1. Where did savings come from? Savings were sourced from: a) the pooling of unreleased appropriations such as unreleased Personnel Services appropriations which will lapse at the end of the year. Section 2) out of the augmented Budgetary Support to Government CorporationsOthers. as well as the Unprogrammed Fund that can be tapped when government has windfall revenue collections. Training for Work Scholarship Program of DOLE-TESDA.A.
Tito Sotto (October 2012–P11M.13 appropriation cover. December 2012–P15M). December 2012–P9M). Pia th Cayetano (January 2013–P50M). November 2012–P5M. Francis Pangilinan (October 2012–P30M). According to Respondent Abad4. ART.Edgardo Angara (October 2012–P50M). Benigno S. “There were two earlier releases made in late August of that same year: Greg Honasan (P50M) and Francis Escudero (P99M). Aquino III. In 2013. Bongbong Marcos and Miriam Defensor-Santiago. Lito Lapid (October 2012–P50M).Jinggoy Estrada (October 2012– P50M). xxx 31. meaning. December 2012–P27M). Antonio Trillanes (October 2012–P50M). Ralph Recto (October 2012– P23M. Arroyo (February 2013–P47M) and Sen. most releases were made during the period October-December. Koko Pimentel (October 2012– P25. VI OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION B. releases were made for funding requests from the office of Sen. Teofisto Guingona (October 2012–P35M. NO DELEGATION OF POWER OF APPROPRIATIONS 4 A$ad& 5eleases t! 6enat!rs 3art !7 6%end n+ Accelerat !n 3r!+ra*) 3u$l shed !n 6e%te*$er 30" 2013) A#a la$le at htt%&''((()d$*)+!#)%h'. November 2012–P39M).%. however. Joker Arroyo. No releases were made in 2012 to Senators Ping Lacson. 29 (1). was already President. these are existing programs and projects in the General Appropriations Act (GAA) that can be augmented by such savings.” He detailed the releases to senators as follows: Those who received releases during that period and their corresponding amounts were: Sens. then-Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile(December 2012–P92M) and current Senate President Frank Drilon(December 2012–P100M). The 24 Senator then. Ramon Revilla (October 2012–P50M). THE DAP AND THE NBC 541 VIOLATE SEC.Serge Osmena (December 2012–P50M).7302) /ast accessed 0ct!$er 9" 2013) 13 . Manuel Villar (October 2012–P50M). GROUNDS THE DISBURSEMENT ACCELERATION PROGRAM (DAP) AND NBC 541 INFRINGE UPON THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW: A. Alan Cayetano (October 2012–P50M). Pia Cayetano.Loren Legarda (October 2012–P50M).5M. “in 2012. based entirely on the request submitted to us by the Senators.
27 ART. by law. THE DAP AND NBC 541 VIOLATE SEC. Article VI. 5 2e*etr a #) Al$a" su%ra 14 . 29 (1). (2) Sec. 25 (5). be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations. that public funds provide an even greater temptation for misappropriation and embezzlement. and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may. Thus. A. the President. Likewise. THE DAP AND THE NBC 541 VIOLATE SEC. the President of the Senate. Respondents’ justification for the creation and implementation of the DAP are (1) Sec. VI OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION DISCUSSION 32. THE DAP AND DBM 541 VIOLATE SEC. 49 and 38. Art. 5 Thus. 25 (5). Per the DBM website mentioned above. another Constitutional safeguard provides for an absolute prohibition regarding paying out public funds from the national treasury – it must be made ONLY in pursuance of an appropriation law. 1987 Constitution “No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law”. VI OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION 36. ART. with the sole exception of savings: Sec. 29 (1). 1987 Constitution “Section 25 (5). Thus Section 25 (5). the Speaker of the House of Representatives. 541 (NBC 541) both infringe on the aforesaid Constitutional limits regarding appropriation and disposition and public funds. 33. ART.” 34. This Honorable Court has previously stated. 25(5). VI of the 1987 Constitution. Sec. however. meticulous rules regarding the appropriation and disposition of public funds were embodied in our Constitution. The 1987 Constitution provides for such meticulous rules. Article VI.14 C. No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations. The Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) and the National Budget Circular No. VI OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION D. Article VI provides for an absolute prohibition regarding transfer of appropriations. 35. the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
No appropriation law was enacted by Congress creating DAP. as well as the purpose for which the DAP may be spent. the DBM 541 authorizes the funding “priority programs and projects not considered in the 2012 budget but expected to be started or implemented during the fiscal year. Book VI of Executive Order No. NO DELEGATION OF POWER OF APPROPRIATIONS 6 Fr) 8!aqu n 9ernas" “1987 :!nst tut !n !7 the 5e%u$l c !7 the 3h l %% nes& :!**entary” 2003 ed t !n) 15 . no appropriation law was enacted stating the amount that may be spent for it. 38.” (5. Tantamount to appropriating public funds. Clearly. 37. Art. The cited provisions by Respondents do not amount to an appropriation law.”6 39. DBM 541 also suffers from this Constitutional infirmity. No less than the Constitution mandates that public funds will not be paid out of the national treasury exception through an appropriation law enacted by Congress. (3) “use of savings” provisions found in the General Appropriation Acts for Fiscal Years 2011. VI of the 1987 Constitution “All appropriation.15 Chapter 5. NBC 541) 42. 40. 292. bills authorizing the increase of the public debt. revenue or tariff bills.7. These cited provisions do not suffice to provide for the legal bases in the creation and implementation of the DAP. VI of the 1987 Constitution which provides: Sec. bills of local application. but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments. Art. “Congress alone can authorize the expenditure of public funds through its power to appropriate. The power to appropriate carries with it the power to specify not just the amount that may be spent but also the purpose for which it may be spent. 24.3. and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives. the DBM 541 is an appropriation of public funds by the Executive. 2012 and 2013.” B. but merely a futile and belated attempt to justify an illegal appropriation and disbursement of public funds and usurpation of the legislative’s power to appropriate public funds. In the case of DAP. which did not originate in the House of Representatives as mandated by Sec. 41. 24.
In 1. Retention or deduction of appropriations authorized in this Act 16 . 45. 2012 and 2013 – could never be the source of delegated powers by the Legislature to the Executive. That all the funds appropriated for the purposes. 49 and 38. 292. Suspension of Expenditure of Appropriations. when such limit or restriction is provided in the General Appropriations Act. Likewise. Book VI of Executive Order No.0. The cited laws by Respondents to justify DAP – Sec. Chapter 5 Book VI of EO 292 as the basis for the President’s power to impound funds allotted for any agency or expenditure authorized in the General Appropriations Act. except for personal services appropriations used for permanent officials and employees. is authorized to suspend or otherwise stop further expenditure of funds allotted for any agency. 48. both DAP and DBM 541 harp on the power of the President to Impound. 64. Except as otherwise provided in the General Appropriations Act and whenever in his judgment the public interest so requires. programs. thus Section 38. 47. unless in accordance with the rules and regulations to be issued by the DBM: PROVIDED. 292. shall be released pursuant to Section 33 (3). Prohibition Against Impoundment of Appropriations. projects and activities authorized under this Act. No appropriations authorized under this Act shall be impounded through retention or deduction. except those covered under the Unprogrammed Fund.0 Rationale. Chapter 5. Unmanageable National Government Budget Deficit. The 2012 GAA provides: Sec. Chapter 5. Neither was there any delegation of the power to appropriate to Respondents. the President. 44. Chapter 5 Book VI of EO 292 provided the limit to the power of the President to suspend expenditure of appropriation. 65. or any other expenditure authorized in the General Appropriations Act. upon notice to the head of office concerned. that is. No. and the “use of savings” provisions found in the General Appropriation Acts for Fiscal Years 2011. the DBM mentions Sections 38 and 39. Book VI of E. Sec.O. as well as the power to withdraw and pool unutilized allotment releases (See 1. Section 38. and the Use of Savings. DBM 541) 46.16 43. the cited laws to justify DBM 541 do not constitute delegated powers. Simply put.
but. further. Unmanageable national government budget deficit as used in this section shall be construed to mean that (i) the actual National Government budget deficit has exceeded the quarterly budget deficit targets consistent with the full-year target deficit as indicated in the Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing submitted by the President and approved by Congress pursuant to Section 22. Article VII of the Constitution.17 shall be effected only in cases where there is an unmanageable national government budget deficit.Except as otherwise provided in the General Appropriations Act. without. the corresponding amounts appropriated for personal services are also deemed transferred. . Authority to Use Savings for Certain Purposes. thus Section 39. with the approval of the President. Savings in the appropriations provided in the General 17 . Authority to Use Savings in Appropriations to Cover Deficits. or (ii) there are clear economic indications of an impending occurrence of such condition. office or agency. This being the case. Section 64 must be read together with Section 65. may. 49. that whenever authorized positions are transferred from one program or project to another within the same department. may even result in savings. any savings in the regular appropriations authorized in the General Appropriations Act for programs and projects of any department. Budgetary under-spending by government agencies cannot be deemed an “unmanageable” budget deficit. there is no justification for the enactment of both DAP and DBM 541. office or agency concerned. Presidential power to impound can only be in exercised in cases “unmanageable national government budget deficit”. office or agency. on the contrary. if said funds remain unspent at the end of the year. Section 39 and 49 Chapter 5 Book VI of EO 292 likewise provided the limit with respect to the use of savings. be used to cover a deficit in any other item of the regular appropriations: provided. that the creation of new positions or increase of salaries shall not be allowed to be funded from budgetary savings except when specifically authorized by law: provided. however increasing the total outlay for personal services of the department. Respondents failed to state any instance that warrants the existence of an unmanageable national government budget deficit. considering that there exists no unmanageable national government budget deficit that could trigger the exercise of the power to impound. 50. Section 49. In which case. In this case. as determined by the Development Budget Coordinating Committee and approved by the President. not deficit.
as may be approved by the President. resignation or separation from the service through no fault of their own in accordance with the provisions of existing law. (12) Payment of obligations of the government or any of its departments or agencies as a result of final judgment of the Courts. (10) Repair. (3) Payment of retirement gratuities or separation pay of employees separated from the service due to government reorganization. (2) Commutation of terminal leaves of employees due to retirement. agrarian reform.18 Appropriations Act may be used for the settlement of the following obligations incurred during a current fiscal year or previous fiscal years as may be approved by Secretary in accordance with rules and procedures as may be approved by the President: (1) Claims of officials. and (13) Payment of valid prior year's obligations of government agencies with any other government office or agency. (4) Payment of salaries of employees who have been suspended or dismissed as a result of administrative or disciplinary action. including unpaid claims for commutation of maternity leave of absence. improvement and renovation of government buildings and infrastructure and other capital assets damaged by natural calamities. energy development. 18 . including food production. or separated from the service through no fault of their own and who have been subsequently exonerated and reinstated by virtue of decisions of competent authority. including burial expenses as authorized under existing law. the provisions of the Compensation and Position Classification Act. (11) Expenses in connection with official participation in trade fairs. and rehabilitation. (6) Salary adjustments of officials and employees as a result of classification action under. employees and laborers who died or were injured in line of duty. (7) Peso support to any undertaking that may be entered into by the government with international organizations. including government-owned or controlled corporations. (9) Priority activities that will promote the economic well being of the nation. athletic competitions and cultural activities. including positions embraced under the Career Executive Service. including administrative and other incidental expenses. celebrations. (5) Cash awards to deserving officials and employees in accordance with civil service law. civic parades. (8) Covering any deficiency in peso counterpart fund commitments for foreign assisted projects. disaster relief. and payment of expenses for the celebration of regular or special official holidays. and implementation of.
which have earlier been released to national government agencies. Section 25 (5) Article VI of the 1987 Constitution prohibits transfer of appropriations. No. Meaning of Savings and Augmentation. 54] and FY 2011 [see Sec. activity or purpose for which the appropriation is authorized. xxx (GAA for FY 2013. and (iii) from appropriation balances realized from the implementation of measures resulting in improved systems and efficiencies and thus enabled agencies to meet and deliver the required or planned targets. (ii) from appropriation balances arising from unpaid compensation and related costs pertaining to vacant positions and leaves of absence without pay. No. Following the above definition.0. THE DAP AND DBM 541 VIOLATE SEC. DBM 541 covers the “withdrawal of unobligated allotments as of June 30. unreleased appropriations of slow moving projects and discontinued projects per Zero-Based Budgeting findings. also for slow-moving programs and projects.19 51. 53. DAP is sourced from savings generated by the government. (3.” 52. 2012 of all national government agencies (NGAs) charged against FY 2011 Continuing Appropriation (R.A.A. 10147) and FY 2012 Current Appropriation (R. VI OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION 55. These funds that the DAP and the DBM 541 call as “savings” – the unreleased appropriations and unobligated allotments – are not actually savings following the strict formulation of the General Appropriation Laws passed by Congress through the years. This simply means that once Congress 19 . 25 (5). C. The same definition is also provided in the GAA for FY 2012 [see Sec. These savings were sourced from “(a) the pooling of unreleased appropriations such as unreleased Personnel Services appropriations which will lapse at the end of the year. 60]) 54. Savings refer to portions or balances of any programmed appropriation in this Act free from any obligation or encumbrance which are: (i) still available after the completion or final discontinuance or abandonment of the work. programs and services approved in this Act at a lesser cost. there is no justification for the DAP and DBM 541. and (b) the withdrawal of unobligated allotments. ART. thus Sec. 10155)”. DBM 541) 53. simply because there are no savings in both cases. According to the DBM website.
to transfer of appropriations ONLY in specific circumstances: (1) if there is a law. THERE IS NO APPROPRATION LAW CREATING THE DAP THERE IS NO LAW AUTHORIZING THE WITHDRAWAL AND TRANSFER OF UNRELEASED APPROPRIATIONS AND UNOBLIGATED ALLOTMENTS 59. 58. The appropriations law becomes the law of the land. with or without any veto from the President. It was “approved by the President on October 12. a. VI of the 1987 Constitution requires that all appropriation bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives. is unconstitutional. President of the Senate. (2) if there are savings. 2011 upon the recommendation of the Development Budget Coordination Committee (DBCC) and the Cabinet Clusters. As a limited grant nevertheless. 60. Speaker of the House. There is no appropriation law mandating the DAP. without under going the same tedious process of enacting a law. 24 Art. the same remains unalterable and must be executed to the letter. and (3) only to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices. Neither is there any law that authorizes Respondents to withdraw and transfer appropriations. 62. the DAP is actually an appropriation law which seeks to set aside public funds for public use. the Constitution allows the President. a product of the collective effort of the representatives of the people and the different government agencies. The DAP. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Based on the DBM website the DAP is a “stimulus package” under the AQUINO administration.” 61. Not even Congress who passed it can alter the same. 20 . As discussed above. and the heads of Constitutional Commissions. not being initiated by the House of Representatives. The creation and implementation of the DAP and the NCB 541 violate the above-stated provision. While being peddled as a “stimulus package”. Such is the wisdom of our Constitution. Sec. 57.20 passes the General Appropriation Act (GAA) or any appropriation law. 56.
No appropriations authorized under this Act shall be impounded through retention or deduction. and only allows it in case of the existence of an “unmanageable national government budget deficit”. except those covered under the Unprogrammed Fund. 21 . Prohibition Against Impoundment of Appropriations. Regarding the authority to impound. Unmanageable national government budget deficit as used in this section shall be construed to mean that (i) the actual National Government budget deficit has exceeded the quarterly budget deficit targets consistent with the full-year target deficit as indicated in the Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing submitted by the President and approved by Congress pursuant to Section 22. The funds that the DAP and the DBM 541 call as “savings” – the unreleased appropriations and unobligated allotments – are not actually savings and could never become savings. the GAA restricts the exercise of impoundment. or (ii) there are clear economic indications of an impending occurrence of such condition. projects and activities authorized under this Act. 292.21 63. b. Respondents claim that the DAP and the NBC 541 pertain to funds coming from “savings”. That all the funds appropriated for the purposes. Retention or deduction of appropriations authorized in this Act shall be effected only in cases where there is an unmanageable national government budget deficit. shall be released pursuant to Section 33 (3). as determined by the Development Budget Coordinating Committee and approved by the President. Respondents claim that the provisions of EO 292 and GAA for FY 2012 and 2013 on impoundment and use of savings are sufficient legal basis for the creation and implementation of DAP and NBC 541. unless in accordance with the rules and regulations to be issued by the DBM: PROVIDED. programs. In this case. 65. Sec. Book VI of E. 65. 64. Article VII of the Constitution. Sec. Unmanageable National Government Budget Deficit. there was no actual budget deficit which has “exceeded the quarterly budget deficit targets” nor “clear economic indications of an impending occurrence of such condition” which would justify DAP and NBC 541. 64. They are wrong. Chapter 5. No. THERE ARE NO SAVINGS WHATSOEVER 66.O.
c. VI of the 1987 Constitution is explicit and categorical when it states the limitations on transfer of appropriations. programs and services approved in this Act at a lesser cost. In the case of unreleased appropriations and unobligated allotments. savings could only happen when the project for which the fund was appropriated was ACTUALLY implemented – whether the same was completed. 54] and FY 2011 [see Sec. The same definition is also provided in the GAA for FY 2012 [see Sec. savings can never be realized with certainty at the middle of fiscal year. Sec. or even before the end of the fiscal year. 22 .22 67. THE TRANSFER OF “SAVINGS” WILL BE TO AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS OTHER THAN THE AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS ACCUMULATING THE SAVINGS IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE CONSTITUTION 71. discontinued or abandoned later on. Further. (ii) from appropriation balances arising from unpaid compensation and related costs pertaining to vacant positions and leaves of absence without pay. 60]) 68. 53. and (iii) from appropriation balances realized from the implementation of measures resulting in improved systems and efficiencies and thus enabled agencies to meet and deliver the required or planned targets. making it impossible for the department or agency to realize savings through that project. Meaning of Savings and Augmentation. Savings refer to portions or balances of any programmed appropriation in this Act free from any obligation or encumbrance which are: (i) still available after the completion or final discontinuance or abandonment of the work. 70. The important element is the actual execution of the project. This interpretation is even seconded and acknowledged by the Office of the President during the budget deliberation of the said Office for its 2014 budget in the House of Representatives in September 2013. In essence. Section 25(5) Art. xxx (GAA for FY 2013. the project for which the funds was appropriated was never executed or was deferred. activity or purpose for which the appropriation is authorized. A study of the definition of savings in our appropriations law through the years would show that the interpretation of Respondents is so flawed and so contrary to the definition of savings that it amounts to bad faith and malice. 69.
Thus. to any program. i.” 73. bureaus. project or activity of any department. 5 ! and FY 2011 [see Sec. The Supreme Court declared as unconstitutional the above provision saying The leeway granted was thus limited. by law. transfer may be allowed for the purpose of augmenting an item and such transfer may be made only if there are savings from another item in the appropriation of the government branch or constitutional body. which are included in the General Appropriations Act. appropriated for the different departments. bureau. the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. "0!# 8 6ec) 2 ?ntr!duct!ry 3r!# s !ns >9@ 077 ce re7ers" ( th n the 7ra*e(!rk !7 +!#ern*ental !r+an =at !n" t! any *a<!r 7unct !nal un t !7 a de%art*ent !r $ureau nclud n+ re+ !nal !77 ces) ?t *ay als! re7er t! any %!s t !n held !r !ccu% ed $y nd # dual %ers!ns" (h!se 7unct !ns are de7 ned $y la( !r re+ulat !n) >A0 292@ 23 . activity. The questioned provision states “The President shall have the authority to transfer any fund. The same definition is also provided in the GAA for FY 2012 [see Sec. be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations. Alba. the Speaker of the House of Representatives. which struck down as unconstitutional Sec.e. be funded by augmentation from savings !r $y the use !7 a%%r!%r at !ns !ther( se auth!r =ed n th s Act) >GAA for FY 2013. President of the Senate. 44 of PD 1177 empowering the President to indiscriminately transfer funds. offices and agencies of the Executive Department. As an exception. 74. and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may. What this provision only allows is “augmentation” 7 and only within the respective “offices”8 of the President. AQUINO can only augment from savings derived by the Office of the President the items also of the Office of the President.23 72. He cannot give it to other departments or agencies.ean n+ !7 sa# n+s and au+*entat !n) xxx Au+*entat !n *%l es the ex stence n th s Act !7 a %r!+ra*" act # ty" !r %r!<ect ( th an a%%r!%r at !n" (h ch u%!n *%le*entat !n !r su$sequent e#aluat !n !7 needed res!urces" s deter* ned t! $e de7 c ent) In no case shall a non-existent program. The purpose and conditions for which funds may be transferred were specified. This interpretation is supported by the Supreme Court decision in the case of Demetria v. 7 6ec) 53 . etc. or project. the President of the Senate.” 75. or office included in the General Appropriations Act or approved after its enactment. “the President.
c) Programs or projects performing well and could deliver more services to the public with the additional funds e. the payment of obligations incurred from premium subsidy for indigent families in the National Health Insurance Program. without regard as to whether or not the funds to be transferred are actually savings in the item from which the same are to be taken. office or agency of the Executive Department to any program. e. DAP and NBC 541 allow “savings” to augment budget items outside the “respective offices” from which the savings were realized. e. and worse. b) Urgent or priority in terms of social and economic development objectives. DAP and NBC 541 utter fail to comply with the constitutional limits with respect to the use of savings.D. Some of the items funded through the DAP are expenditures which are mandated by law. No.A. thereby amounting to an undue delegation of legislative powers. bureau. the upgrading of equipment and facilities for specialty hospitals. 1177 unduly over extends the privilege granted under said Section 16.g. and the Disaster Risk and Exposure Assessment for Mitigation (DREAM) program of DOST. such constitutional infirmities render the provision in question null and void. It empowers the President to indiscriminately transfer funds from one department.24 Paragraph 1 of Section 44 of P. but likewise goes beyond the tenor thereof.g. Training for Work Scholarship Program of DOLE-TESDA. The DBM website informs us What kind of projects are funded through the DAP? The programs and projects submitted to the DBM must meet the following conditions: a) Fast-moving or quick-disbursing. or whether or not the transfer is for the purpose of augmenting the item to which said transfer is to be made. bureau or office included in the General Appropriations Act or approved after its enactment. project or activity of any department. 76. to fund new budget items not considered in the previous GAA. such as capital infusion for the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (R. rehabilitation of Light Rail Transit and Metro Rail Transit. Section 2) out of the augmented Budgetary Support to Government CorporationsOthers.g. It does not only completely disregard the standards set in the fundamental law. Indeed. (Frequently Asked Questions about DAP) 24 . 7653. 77.
the distinct and severable parts of the appropriation bill. transfer or realignment of “savings” to these kinds of programs and projects not considered in the 2012 budget are in utter violation of the constitution. (2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an appropriation. While the 5. the votes of each House shall be determined by yeas or nays. It is tantamount to an appropriation law which is clearly a legislative mandate and not the function of Respondents. he shall veto it and return the same with his objections to the House where it originated. VI OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION 80. Congress is given the opportunity to override the veto. before it becomes a law. Before the GAA becomes a law. twothirds of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill. Sec. If the President exercises the veto power. it shall become a law as if he had signed it. revenue. the Constitution mandates that the same be presented to the President. If.25 78. who has the power to veto any particular item or items in the appropriation bill. VI. 1987 Constitution (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall. The President is given the power to item-veto the particulars.7. item-veto is available to the President only before an appropriation bill becomes a law. 82. THE DAP AND NBC 541 VIOLATE SEC. then 25 . it shall become a law. to the other House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered.3 of the NBC 541 authorizes the funding of “priority programs and projects not considered in the 2012 budget but expected to be started or implemented during the current year. after such reconsideration. In all such cases. and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House. D. details. otherwise. If the President does not exercise the item-veto and the appropriation bill becomes a law. be presented to the President. 81. If he approves the same he shall sign it. or tariff bill. The President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the House where it originated within thirty days after the date of receipt thereof. 27 ART. but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does not object. otherwise. together with the objections. Art. However. and the names of the Members voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal. which shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider it. 27.” 79. Verily. it shall be sent.
The funds accumulated through the DAP and by virtue of NBC 541 is also part of the presidential pork barrel. the pork barrel system remains in the national budget. were funds appropriated by Congress through the General Appropriations Acts for FY 2011. 86. which Respondents have no authority or power to do. The funds from which the Respondents intended to impound and transfer. As of the filing of this present Petition. A concrete example of this is how P50 Million or more was given as “incentive” to senators who voted to impeach Corona. It is very apparent that the DAP was used for patronage politics. wherein AQUINO has the sole discretion where the funds will go and used for patronage politics. but also of fiscal hocus pocus. while the rest did not receive any. and if necessary even impeachment of the President. Not even Congress can amend the appropriation laws without passing an amendatory law in accordance with the Constitutional procedures. equipped as they were for the grilling during the budget deliberations in Congress and fought tooth and nail to justify their request. we maintain. 87. CONLUSION 85. Additionally. we cannot help but comment on the sorry state of the Philippine budget system. if not graft and corruption.through court action. national government agencies and departments request for hundreds of millions or billions of pesos. The call to abolish the pork barrel system continue to intensify and the people’s actions take different forms -. The pork barrel system. 83. consists not only of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) currently being litigated by this Honorable Court. but also of the bigger presidential pork barrel amounting to at least P900 Billion. 88. characterized not only to fiscal dictatorship by the President as exemplified by the unbridled and illegal realignment of funds discussed above. 2012 and 2013. This present Petition questioning Respondents’ realignment of public funds amounting to billions of pesos is also an effort contributing to the people’s call to abolish the pork barrel system.26 he is bound to execute the law faithfully as is mandated to him by the Constitution. mobilization. resort to people’s initiative. or were actually impounded and transferred. The DAP and the NBC 541 are executive creations which are noxious to this constitutional process. 84. at the end of the 26 . And yet. The DAP and the NBC 541 are actually unilateral executive amendments to duly enacted appropriation laws. Yearly.
These huge amounts were spent on budgetary items many of which were not in the 2011 or 2012 GAA passed by Congress.7 Billion in 2012.23 Billion spent so far under the DAP. according to the DOTC. The DBM reported a total of P142. Public funds have already been disbursed much to the prejudice of the rights of Petitioners.8 Billion.13 Billion was released to the DILG “for modernization of the PNP” and “redevelopment of Roxas Boulevard”. ii. P8.5 Billion for MRT 3 to purchase “additional train cars”. Aquino.27 fiscal year these same agencies and departments accumulate millions and/or billions worth of savings! 89. P1. there will be no additional train cars until the end of the term of Pres. GROUNDS FOR ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 90. These additional Billions were not found in the 2012 budget vi. 15. These GOCCs have Billions as budgetary support under the Special Purpose Funds of the GAA.9 Billion for GOCCs. with P83.53 Billion spent in 2011 and another P 58. Since Respondents already reiterated that DAP will continue to be implemented. iii. and another Billions in the Unprogrammed Funds.5 Billion “stimulus fund” for ARMM on top of its regular budget of P11. P4. when in fact. v. This is surely unconscionable. 91. P 625 Million just to conduct a survey on farmers and fisherfolks by DAR and DA 27 . From the foregoing. Petitioners likewise move for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or a Temporary Restraining Order to enjoin Respondents from implementing the DAP in order to protect the substantive rights and interests of Petitioners while the case is pending before this Honorable Court.82 Billion for the CPLA and MNLF through the amorphous PAMANA fund. then there exists an extreme necessity for the Honorable Court to issue a writ or a TRO. it is necessary for this Honorable Court to declare the illegality and unconstitutionality of the DAP and the NBC 541. These items include the following: i. will again be given a huge amount under DAP. P26. iv.
and permanently enjoining Respondents from implementing the DAP and NBC 541.28 vii. necessitating the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction against the implementation of the DAP. Billions given to legislators including the P50-100 Million given to Senators as incentive in the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona. Respectfully submitted. They sustained and will continue to sustain personal and substantial injury. October 11. and (c) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. premises considered. 92. to wit: (a) the invasion of right sought to be protected is material and substantial. Petitioners were able to clearly show that they are entitled to the issuance of an injunctive relief for having complied with the requirement set forth by the Rules. (3) That after notice and hearing. 541. Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise prayed for. Quezon City for Manila.29 Billion for “Agrarian Reform Communities Project 2 of the DAR. 541 during the pendency of this Petition. it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court the following: (1) That this Petition be given due course (2) That a temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction be issued to restrain the Respondents from implementing the Disbursement Acceleration Program and the National Budget Circular No. a final order be issued declaring as NULL AND VOID the Disbursement Acceleration Program and the National Budget Circular No. viii. P1.9 93. (b) the right of the complainant is clear and unmistakable. 20 9 369A #s B!lent n!4Cen l!" C)5) D!) 159277 2ece*$er 21" 2004) 28 . Petitioners’ rights as taxpayer and legislator have been violated. in order to prevent further damage PRAYER WHEREFORE. Because of the usurpation by Respondents of the legislative’s power of appropriation and transfer of appropriation under the Constitution.
12 Attorney’s Roll No. EVANGELISTA Counsel for Petitioners No. JOVENCIO H. 42797 th ATTY. Manila MCLE Compliance No. 08. YAMBOT 29 . 01. 1444212. Quezon City Mobile No. This explanation is made pursuant to Rule 13. 836619. Section 11 of the Rules of Court. 0906-3288104 email: anet_maguigad@yahoo.. IV-0007341. VANESSA QUIAMBAO MAGUIGAD Counsel for Petitioners No. IV – 0016616/04-11-13 th EXPLANATION OF SERVICE OF PETITION THROUGH REGISTERED MAIL The service of copies of the instant Petition is made through registered mail.10. 01. as personal service thereof cannot be made due to distance and lack of available personnel. 01. 45 K-7 St. West Kamias. YAMBOT Counsel for Petitioners No. Manila IBP No. Quezon City PTR No.13. 45 K-7 St.10. Brgy. Manila MCLE Compliance No. 1444212. Quezon City email: evangelista_law@yahoo. 58291. 922644/01-08-13/Rizal Roll No. 9611432/01-07-13/Rizal IBP No.12 Attorney’s Roll No. West Kamias. MARIA CRISTINA P.10. 836618.13. Manila Chapter III PTR No. 08.13.10. 01. 45 K-7 St.. Brgy.com IBP No. West Kamias. Brgy.10. IV-0007340. 05-04-10 th MARIA CRISTINA P.13.com PTR No. 59700 MCLE Compliance No..10.29 ATTY.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.