Notes On Araullo V Aquino
Notes On Araullo V Aquino
This case is a petition assailing the constitutionality of the DAP on the grounds that
it allowed the Executive to allocated public money pooled from programmed and
unprogrammed funds of its various agencies in the guise of the President exercising
his constitutional authority under Sec 25(5) of the 1987 Constitution to transfer
funds out of savings to augment the appropriations of offices within the Executive
Branch of Government.
Notes:
Overview:
The DAP was seen as a remedy to speed up the funding of government projects.
DAP enables the Executive to realign funds from slow moving projects to priority
projects instead of waiting for next years appropriation. So what happens under the
DAP was that if a certain government project is being undertaken slowly by a certain
executive agency, the funds allotted therefor will be withdrawn by the Executive.
Once withdrawn, these funds are declared as savings by the Executive and said
funds will then be reallotted to other priority projects. The DAP program did work to
stimulate the economy as economic growth was in fact reported and portion of such
growth was attributed to the DAP (as noted by the Supreme Court):
DAP was a program designed to promote economic growth
-
Congress receive the Presidents budget, inclusive of the NEP and BESF
Initially assigned to the HoR Appropriations Committee who then drafts the
General Appropriations Bill
- The Senate conducts its won committee hearings and then Bicameral
Conference Committee
- The harmonized version of the GB is presented for Presidents approval
3. Budget Execution
- DBM issue programs for release of funds; prepares Allotment and Cash
Release Program ,release allotments, issue disbursements authorities
- Actual disbursement terminates the Budget Execution Phase and
accomplished through the Modified Disbursement Scheme
4. Accountability
- Agencys accountability may be examined and evaluated trhough
performance targets and outcomes; budget accountability reports; review of
agency programs; audit conducted by COA
Issues:
1. WON 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).
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. 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.
These DAP transfers are not savings contrary to what was being declared
by the Executive. Under the definition of savings in the GAA, savings only
occur, among other instances, when there is an excess in the funding of a
certain project once it is completed, finally discontinued, or finally
abandoned. The GAA does 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.
Section 25(5) is not a self executing provision GAAs of 2011 and 2012
lacked valid provisions to authorize transfers of funds under the DAP; hence
the transfers under DAP were unconstitutional --- in addition provisions of
GAA regarding use of savings did not carry the phrase for their respective
offices, rather it stated to augment any item in this Act this contravenes
the Constitution
Discretionary authority of the Executive does not allow the President to substitute
his own will for that of Congress; he was still required to remain faithful to the
provisions of the GAA. It is the President who proposes the budget but it is Congress
that has the final say on matters of appropriation.