ACORD v.
ZAMORA The committees were tasked merely to conduct quarterly
G.R. No. 144256 / JUNE 8, 2000 / CARPIO-MORALES, J./LOCGOV
SUMMARY. GAA for 2000 had a provision allotting P10B as part of
IRA subject to the condition that the revenue targets submitted by the
Pres are met. The SC held that the provision is void for being in
contravention to the constitutional mandate of the automatic release of
the IRA, pursuant to Art. X, Sec. 6.
DOCTRINE. As the Consti lays upon the executive the duty to
automatically release the just share of LGUs in the natl taxes, so it
enjoins the legislature not to pass laws that might prevent the executive
from performing this duty. If indeed the framers intended to allow the
enactment of statutes making the release of IRA conditional instead of
automatic, then Art. X, Sec. 6 would have been worded differently.
The last part of the sentence, ‘which shall be automatically released to
them,’ would have been qualified by the phrase ‘as provided by law’,
or something to that effect. And since under the provision, only the just
share is qualified by the words ‘as determined by law,’ and not the
release thereof, the plain implication is that Congress is not authorized
by the Consti to hinder or impede the automatic release of the IRA.
FACTS.
● Pursuant to Sec. 22, Art. VII Consti, President Estrada submitted
the Natl Expenditures Program for Fiscal Yr 2000.
● The program proposed an IRA in the amt of P121.778B ff the
formula in Sec. 284 LGC (IRA=40% of natl internal revenue
taxes).
● Eventually, the GAA for the Yr 2000 was enacted.
● It provided that the IRA for LGUs shall amount to P111.778B.
● In another part of the GAA, under the heading
“UNPROGRAMMED FUND”, it is provided that an amount of
P10B, apart from the P111.778B, shall be used to fund the IRA,
which amount shall be released only when the original revenue
targets submitted by the Pres to Congress can be realized based on
a quarterly assessment to be conducted by certain committees,
namely, the Devt Budget Coordinating Committee, Senate’s
Committee on Finance, and the HoR’s Committee on
Appropriations.
● Hence, this petition questioning the constitutionality of this
provision.One to two sentences per bullet only.
ISSUES & RATIO.
1. WON the petition contains proper verifications and
certifications against forum-shopping. – YES. Petitioners
substantially complied with the RoC.
Despite merely stating that the allegations are ‘true of our
knowledge and belief’ instead of ‘ture and correct of our personal
knowledge or based on authentic records’, the statement constitutes
substantial compliance especially when the question at issue is one
purely of law and the veracity of the allegations are not disputed.
Even if the verifications for the organizations were not signed by
those authorized, there would remain the indivs who validly
executed their verifications.
2. WON Petitioners have standing. – Moot and academic since
the provinces of Batangas and NE, both LGUs, have adopted
the arguments of the Petitioners.
It is the LGUs, each having a separate juridical entity, which stand
to be injured—Adoption of the provinces of petitioners’ arguments
made the question of standing academic.
No cause of action against Respondents as they have no
responsibility with respect to the mandate of the GAA provisions,
and that the committees mentioned in the GAA should instead
have been impleaded – The GAA provisions were not to be
implemented solely by the committees named therein, but also by
the executive branch, particularly the DBM and the Natl Treasurer.
assessments, and not in the actual release of the IRA, which is the
duty of the executive. Since the present controversy centers on the
proper manner of releasing the IRA, respondents are the proper
parties to the suit.
3. WON the provision violates the constitutional injunction that
the just share of local govts in the natl taxes or the IRA shall be
automatically released. — YES.
(SUB-ISSUE NO. 1)
Petitioners: the GAA violated Art. X, Sec. 6 Consti 1 when it made
the release of IRA contingent on whether revenue collections could
meet the revenue targets originally submitted by the Pres, rather
than making the release automatic.
Respondents: the consti provision is addressed to the executive, not
to the legislature, hence, it does not prevent the legislature from
imposing conditions upon the release of the IRA, based on the
delibs2 of the ConComm. Davide and Nolledo shared a common
assumption that the entity which would execute the automatic
release of internal revenue was the executive dept. The Pres or any
member of the Exec Dept cannot unilaterally, without the backing
statute, withhold the release of the IRA.
SC: As the Consti lays upon the executive the duty to
automatically release the just share of LGUs in the natl taxes, so it
enjoins the legislature not to pass laws that might prevent the
executive from performing this duty. If indeed the framers
intended to allow the enactment of statutes making the release of
IRA conditional instead of automatic, then Art. X, Sec. 6 would
have been worded differently. The last part of the sentence, ‘which
shall be automatically released to them,’ would have been qualified
by the phrase ‘as provided by law’, or something to that effect.
And since under the provision, only the just share is qualified by
the words ‘as determined by law,’ and not the release thereof, the
plain implication is that Congress is not authorized by the Consti to
hinder or impede the automatic release of the IRA.
(SUB-ISSUE NO. 2)
Respondents: But these statutory provisions show the legislature
authorizing the executive branch to withhold the IRA in certain
circumstances: Sec. 70 of the PNP Reform and Reorganization Act
of 19983, Sec. 531 LGC4, Sec. 10, RA 79245, and Rule XXXII, Art.
1 Section 6. Local government units shall have a just share, as determined by
law, in the national taxes which shall be automatically released to them.
2 Basta nag-aaway lang sila kung dapat may word na “periodically” sa phrase
na ‘which shall be automatically (periodically) released to them.’
3 SECTION 70.  Budget Allocation. – x x x The Secretary shall submit a
report to Congress and the President within fifteen (15) days from the
effectivity of this Act on the number of PLEBs already organized as well as
the LGUs still without PLEBs.  Municipalities or cities without a PLEB or
with an insufficient number of organized PLEBs shall have thirty (30) days to
organize their respective PLEBs.  After such period, the DILG and the
Department of Budget and Management shall withhold the release of the
LGUs share in the national taxes in cities and municipalities still without
PLEB(s). 
4 This provision is among the Transitory Provisions of the Code, and is
quoted by respondents as follows:
“SECTION 531.  Debt Relief for Local Government Units.— x x x “The
national government is hereby authorized to deduct from the quarterly
share of each local government unit in the internal revenue collections an
amount to be determined on the basis of the amortization schedule of the
local unit concerned: Provided, That such amount shall not exceed five
percent (5%) of the monthly internal revenue allotment of the local
government unit concerned.
5 Sources of Funds and the Operating Budget of MMDA:
 383(c) of the Rules and Reglns Implementing the LGC6.
DECISION.
SC: Where the meaning of a consti provision is clear, Petition GRANTED.
contemporaneous or practical, executive interpretation is entitled to
no weight. This is because the application of the doctrine of
contemporaneous construction is more restricted as applied to the
interpretation of consti provisions than when applied to statutory
provisions, and that except as to matters committed by the consti
itself to the discretion of some other dept, contemporaneous or
practical construction is not necessarily binding upon the courts,
even in a doubtful case.

Applied: The consti provision mandates: (1) The LGUs shall have
a just share in the natl taxes; (2) the just share shall be determined
by law; and (3) the just share shall be automatically released to the
LGUs. Being “automatic” connotes something mechanical,
spontaneous, and perfunctory. The GAA provisions withhold the
releasing of the IRA pending an event which is not even certain of
occurring. To rule that the term “automatic release” contemplates
such conditional release would be to strip the term “automatic” of
all meaning.

Additionally, to interpret “automatic release” in such a broad

manner would be inconsistent with the ruling in Pimentel v
Aguirre. In that case, the withholding by the executive was ruled to
have contravened the constitutional mandate of an automatic
release. There is no substantial difference between the withholding
of the IRA there and in this case, except that here it is the
legislature, not the executive, which has authorized such. Despite
this distinction, the Pimentel ruling remains applicable, since Art.
X, Sec. 6 Consti enjoins both the legislative and executive
branches of govt.

Only exception to the bar from withholding the IRA: Sec. 284
LGC7. If the natl internal revenue collections for the current fiscal
yr is less than 40% of the collections of the preceding 3 rd fiscal yr,
what should be automatically released shall be a proportionate
amount of the collections for the current fiscal yr. Such adjustment
may even be made on a quarterly basis depending on the actual
collections of natl internal revenue taxes for the qtr of the current
fiscal year.

x x x (d) Five percent (5%) of the total annual gross revenue of the preceding
year, net of the internal revenue allotment, or each local government unit
mentioned in Section 2 hereof, shall accrue and become payable monthly to
the MMDA by each city or municipality.  In case of failure to remit the said
fixed contribution, the DBM shall cause the disbursement of the same to
the MMDA chargeable against the IRA allotment of the city or
municipality concerned, the provisions of Section 286 of RA 7160 to the
contrary notwithstanding. 
6 ARTICLE 383.  Automatic Release of IRA Shares of LGUs. – x x x (c)
The IRA share of LGUs shall not be subject to any lien or holdback that
may be imposed by the National Government for whatever purpose unless
otherwise provided in the Code or other applicable laws and loan contract
or project agreements arising from foreign loans and international
commitments, such as premium contributions of LGUs to the Government
Service Insurance System and loans contracted by LGUs under foreign-
assisted projects.
7 Provided, That in the event that the national government incurs an
unmanageable public sector deficit, the President of the Philippines is hereby
authorized, upon the recommendation of Secretary of Finance, Secretary of
Interior and Local Government and Secretary of Budget and Management, and
subject to consultation with the presiding officers of both Houses of Congress
and the presidents of the "liga," to make the necessary adjustments in the
internal revenue allotment of local government units but in no case shall the
allotment be less than thirty percent (30%) of the collection of national
internal revenue taxes of the third fiscal year preceding the current fiscal year:
Provided, further, That in the first year of the effectivity of this Code, the local
government units shall, in addition to the thirty percent (30%) internal revenue
allotment which shall include the cost of devolved functions for essential
public services, be entitled to receive the amount equivalent to the cost of
devolved personal services.