Facts:

The President, Benigno Aquino III noticed a slow growth in the economy on the time
under his reign as President.

The Budget Secretary, Florencio "Butch” Abad formulated a program called the
Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), a remedy to SPEED UP Government
Funding and which is to enable the Executive to realign funds from slow moving projects
to be prioritized next year’s appropriation. Other sources of the DAP include the
unprogrammed funds from the General Appropriations Act & GAA. Unprogrammed
funds are standby appropriations made by congress in the GAA. Meanwhile, in
September 2013, Senator Jinggoy Estrada made an expose claiming that he, and other
Senators, received Php 50M from the President as an incentive for voting in favor of the
impeachment of then Chief Justice Renato Corona. Secretary Abad claimed that the
money was taken from the DAP but was disbursed upon the request of the Senators.
This apparently opened a can of worms as it turns out that the DAP does not only realign
funds within the executive. It turns out that some non-executive projects were also
funded: to name a few; Php1.5B for the CPLA (Cordillera Peoples Liberation Army),
Php1.8B for the MNLF (Moro National Liberation Front), P700M for the Quezon
Province, P50-P100M for certain Senators each, P10 B for Relocation Projects, etc. This
prompted Maria Carolina Araullo, Chairperson of the bagong Alyansang Makabayan,
and several other concerned citizens to file various petitions with the Supreme court
questioning the validity of the DAP. Among their contentions was; DAP is
unconstitutional because it violates the constitutional rule which provides that "no money
shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.”
Secretary Abad argued that the DAP is based on certain laws particularly the GAA
(savings and augmentation provisionsthereof), Sec. 25(5), Art.VI of the Constitution
(power of the President to augment) , Secs.38 and 49 of Executive Order 292 (power of
the President to suspend expenditures and authority to use savings, respectively)

Issue: Whether or not the DAP violates the principle “no Money shall be paid out of the
Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law” (Sec. 29 (1), Art. VI,
Constitution)

Rulling: I. No, the DAP did not violate Section 29(1), Art. VI of the Constitution. DAP was
merely a program by the executive and is not a fund nor is it an appropriation. It is a
program for prioritizing government spending. As such, it did not violate the
Constitutional provision cited in Section 29, Art. VI of the Constitution. In DAP no
additional funds were withdrawn from the Treasury otherwise, an appropriation made by
law would have been required. Funds, which were already appropriated for by the GAA,
were merely being realigned via the DAP.
 SALVADOR ESTIPONA, JR. y ASUELA, Petitioner,

vs.

HON. FRANK E. LOBRIGO, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

G.R. No. 226679               August 15, 2017

TOPIC: Section 23 of RA 9165, rule-making power of Supreme Court, equal protection

clause

PONENTE: Peralta

FACTS:

Petitioner Estipona, Jr. was charged with violation of Section 11 of RA 9165.

On June 15, 2016, Estipona filed a Motion to Allow the Accused to Enter into a Plea
Bargaining Agreement, praying to withdraw his not guilty plea and, instead, to enter a
plea of guilty for violation of Section 12 (NOTE: should have been Section 15?) of the
same law, with a penalty of rehabilitation in view of his being a first-time offender and
the minimal quantity of the dangerous drug seized in his possession.

Petitioner argues that Section 23 of RA 9165 which prohibits plea bargaining in all
violations of said law violates:

1. The intent of the law expressed in paragraph 3, Section 2 thereof;

2. The rule-making authority of the Supreme Court under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the
1987 Constitution; and
3. The principle of separation of powers among the three equal branches of the
government.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not Section 23 of RA 9165 is unconstitutional as it encroached upon the

power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of procedure.
2. Whether or not Section 23 of RA 9165 is unconstitutional for being violative of the
Constitutional right to equal protection of the law.

HELD:

FIRST ISSUE: YES

The Supreme Court held that the power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and
procedure is now Their exclusive domain and no longer shared with the Executive and
Legislative departments.

The Court further held that the separation of powers among the three co-equal branches
of our government has erected an impregnable wall that keeps the power to promulgate
rules of pleading, practice and procedure within the sole province of this Court.  The
other branches trespass upon this prerogative if they enact laws or issue orders that
effectively repeal, alter or modify any of the procedural rules promulgated by the Court.