Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Araullo vs
Benigno Aquino III
A consolidation of nine (9) cases
all assailing the constitutionality of
the Disbursement Acceleration
Program
What is the Disbursement
Acceleration Program (DAP)?
A program implemented by the Department of Budget and
Management during President Benigno Aquinos term intended to
speed up government spending.
Not really.
ISSUES RAISED
(1) There is a law authorizing 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 the
Constitutional Commissions to transfer funds within their respective offices;
(2) The funds to be transferred are savings generated from the appropriations for their respective
offices; and
(3) The purpose of the transfer is to augment an item in the general appropriations law for their
respective offices.
First element: Was there a law authorizing
the Executive to transfer funds
NONE. The DAP is not a law but a mere executive issuance.
Section 25(5), not being a self-executing provision of the
Constitution, must have an implementing law for it to be operative.
That law, generally, is the General Appropriations Act (GAA) of a
given fiscal year. To comply with the first requisite, the GAAs should
expressly authorize the transfer of funds.
The 2011 and 2012 GAA were textually unfaithful to the Constitution
for not carrying the phrase "for their respective offices" contained in
Section 25(5) while the 2013 GAA included the omitted phrase of
the previous years
Thus, the transfers/ augmentations made to the Legislative branch
(cross-border) are UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Second Element: Were the savings declared
faithful to the savings within the intendment of
the respective GAAs?
NO
TheDAP transfers are not savings contrary to what was being
declared by the Executive.
The GAAs do not refer to savings as funds withdrawn from a slow
moving project. Thus, since the statutory definition of savings was
not complied with under the DAP, there is no basis at all for the
transfers. Further, savings should only be declared at the end of the
fiscal year. But under the DAP, funds are already being withdrawn
from certain projects in the middle of the year and then being
declared as savings by the Executive particularly by the DBM.
Third Element: Were the transfers intended to
augment an item in the general appropriations
law for their respective offices?
Transfers within their respective offices contemplate realignment
of funds to an existing project in the GAA. Under the DAP, even
though some projects funded were within the Executive, these
projects are non-existent insofar as the GAA is concerned because
no funds were appropriated to them in the GAA.
Sourcing of unprogrammed funds
to the DAP is unconstitutional.
Indeed, as submitted by the Respondents, the unprogrammed
funds were not treated as savings BUT the GAAs precisely specified
the instances when the unprogrammed funds could be released
and the purposes for which they could be used.
There was no showing that the conditions set forth in the GAAs were
complied with for the unprogrammed funds to be validly brought to
the DAP; hence, UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
No violation of the equal protection
clause, checks and balances, and public
accountability.
Petitioners have not substantiated allegations that Senators and
Congressmen being unaware of the existence and implementation
of the DAP or that there were legislators favored in the allocation.
Petitioners are not the proper parties to raise the issue.
The DAP and its implementing issuances infringed the doctrine of
separation of powers when it violated Section 25 (5), Art VII of the
Constitution.
DAP and its implementing issuances, per se, were policies and acts
which the Executive could properly adopt.
The doctrine of operative fact
applies
The Court found the doctrine of operative fact applicable to the
adoption and implementation of the DAP. Its application to the DAP
proceeds from equity and fair play. The consequences resulting
from the DAP and its related issuances could not be ignored or
could no longer be undone.