Author: SILVER SNAKES
Briliantes v. Comelec (2004)  April 27, 2004 - the COMELEC met en banc to resolve whether to
Petition: Petition for certiorari and prohibition
Petitioner: SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR., JOSE CONCEPCION, JR., JOSE
DE VENECIA, EDGARDO J. ANGARA, DR. JAIME Z. GALVEZ-TAN,
FRANKLIN M. DRILON, FRISCO SAN JUAN, NORBERTO M. GONZALES,
HONESTO M. GUTIERREZ, ISLETA, AND JOSE A. BERNAS, Petitioners-
in-Intervention
Respondent: COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
DOCTRINE: Unless specifically authorized in a General Appropriations law,
no change or modification shall be made in the expenditure items in the
said act and other appropriations laws unless in cases of augmentation
from savings in appropriations as authorized under Section 25(5),
Article VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
FACTS:
 December 22, 1997 - Congress enacted Republic Act No. 8436,
authorizing the COMELEC to use an automated election system
(AES) for the process of voting, counting of votes and
canvassing/consolidating the results of the national and local
elections. It also mandated the COMELEC to acquire automated
counting machines (ACMs), computer equipment, devices and
materials; and to adopt new electoral forms and printing materials.
 October 29, 2002 - the COMELEC adopted, in its Resolution No. 02-
0170, a modernization program for the 2004 elections consisting of
three (3) phases, to wit:
o (1) PHASE I – Computerized system of registration and
voters validation or the so-called "biometrics" system of
registration;
o (2) PHASE II – Computerized voting and counting of votes;
and
o (3) PHASE III – Electronic transmission of results.
 The COMELEC approved a Resolution on February 10, 2004
referring the letter of the Senate President Franklin Drilon. The
COMELEC had to contend with the primal problem of sourcing the
money for the implementation of the project since the money
allocated by the Office of the President for the AES had already been
spent for the acquisition of the equipment. All these developments
notwithstanding, and despite the explicit specification in the project
contract for Phase III that the same was functionally intended to be
an interface of Phases I and II of the AES modernization program,
the COMELEC was determined to carry out Phase III of the AES.
proceed with its implementation of Phase III of the AES.
Commissioner Tuason, Jr. stated that he had no objection as to the
Phase III of the modernization project itself, but had concerns about
the budget. He opined that other funds of the COMELEC may not be
proper for realignment. Commissioners Resurreccion Z. Borra and
Virgilio Garcillano and Commissioner Manuel Barcelona, Jr.
expressed their concerns on the budget for the project.
 Despite the serious reservations of most of its members, the
COMELEC on April 28, 2004, barely two weeks before the national
and local elections, approved the assailed resolution Resolution
6712 declaring that it "adopts the policy that the precinct election
results of each city and municipality shall be immediately transmitted
electronically in advance to the COMELEC, Manila."
 Jose Concepcion, Jr., Jose De Venecia, Edgardo J. Angara, Dr.
Jaime Z. Galvez-Tan, Franklin M. Drilon, Frisco San Juan, Norberto
M. Gonzales, Honesto M. Isleta and Jose A. Bernas, filed with this
Court their Motion to Admit Attached Petition-in-Intervention. In their
petition-in-intervention, movants-petitioners urge the Court to declare
as null and void the assailed resolution and permanently enjoin the
respondent COMELEC from implementing the same. The Court
granted the motion of the petitioners-in-intervention and admitted
their petition.
ISSUES:
1. WoN whether Resolution No. 6712 is void for violating Art. VI, Sec.
29 (par. 1) of the 1987 Constitution that "no money shall be paid out
of the treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by
law;"
PROVISION:
Article 6 Section 25 (5) - No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of
appropriations; however, 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 Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be
authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their
respective offices from savings in other items of their respective
appropriations.
RULING + RATIO:
YES. The electronic transmission and tabulation of the election results under
Resolution No. 6712 is "unofficial" in character, meaning "not emanating from
or sanctioned or acknowledged by the government or government body. Any
Author: SILVER SNAKES
disbursement of public funds to implement this project is contrary to
the provisions of the Constitution and Rep. Act No. 9206, which is the
2003 General Appropriations Act.
The implementation of the assailed resolution would entail, in due course, the
hiring of additional manpower, technical services and acquisition of
equipment. According to the COMELEC during the hearing that the 2003
General Appropriations Act, it needed P55,000,000 to operationalize the
project, including the encoding process. Hence, it would necessarily involve
the disbursement of public funds for which there must be the corresponding
appropriation.
elections.
Section 52 of Rep. Act No. 9206 proscribes any change or modification in the
expenditure items authorized thereunder. Thus:
Sec. 52. Modification of Expenditure Components. Unless
specifically authorized in this Act, no change or modification shall
be made in the expenditure items in this Act and other
appropriations laws unless in cases of augmentation from
savings in appropriations as authorized under Section 25(5),
Article VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Earlier, during the April 27, 2004 meeting of the COMELEC En Banc, the Neither can the money needed for the project be taken from the COMELEC’s
Commissioners expressed their serious concerns about the lack of funds for savings, if any, because it would be violative of Article VI, Section 25 (5) of
the project, the propriety of using the funds for Phase III of its modernization, the 1987 Constitution.
and the possibility of realigning funds to finance the project.
The power to augment from savings lies dormant until authorized by law. In
We have reviewed Rep. Act No. 9206, the General Appropriations Act, which this case, no law has, thus, far been enacted authorizing the respondent
took effect on April 23, 2003 and find no appropriation for the project of COMELEC to transfer savings from another item in its appropriation, if
the COMELEC for electronic transmission of "unofficial" election there are any, to fund the assailed resolution. No less than the Secretary
results. What is appropriated therein is the amount of P225,000,000 of the of the Senate certified that there is no law appropriating any amount for an
capital outlay for the AES modernization of the electoral system, prescribed "unofficial" count and tabulation of the votes cast during the May 10, 2004
under Republic Act No. 8436, particularly for the process of voting, counting elections:
of votes and canvassing/consolidation of results of the national and local
What is worrisome is that despite the concerns of the Commissioners
B. PROJECTS Maintenance & Capital Total during its En Banc meeting on April 27, 2004, the COMELEC
Other Operating Outlays nevertheless approved the assailed resolution the very next day. Worse,
Expenses
even in the absence of a certification of availability of funds for the project, it
I. Locally-Funded Projects approved the assailed resolution.
a. For the Modernization of
Electoral System
225,000,000 225,000,000 Disposition: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed
Resolution No. 6712 dated April 28, 2004 issued by the Commission on
b. FY 2003 Preparatory Elections (COMELEC) En Banc is hereby declared NULL AND VOID.
250,000,000 250,000,000
Activities for National Elections
SO ORDERED.
c. Upgrading of Voters’
125,000,000 125,000,000
Database

d. Conduct of Special Election

to fill the vacancy in the Third 6,500,000 6,500,000
District of Cavite

e. Implementation of Absentee
300,000,000 300,000,000
Voting Act of 2003 (RA 9189)

Sub-Total, Locally-Funded ========== ========= ========== 45

Projects 681,500,000 225,000,000 300,000,000
Author: SILVER SNAKES
Garcia vs. Mata (1975) some particular appropriation therein; and any such
provision or enactment shall be limited in its operation to
Petition: Certiorari such appropriation‖
Petitioner: Eusebio Garcia
Respondent: Ernesto Mata (Sec. of Nat’l Defense) and Gen. Manuel Yan
(Chief of Staff, AFP)
Ponencia: Castro, J. RULING + RATIO:
1. NO, paragraph 11 of RA 1600 is unconstitutional
a. RA 1600 is a general appropriations bill; it appropriated
DOCTRINE: (Standard of care required) money for the operation of the government for the fiscal year
1956-1957.
The unconstitutionality of a “rider” manifests itself from a specific provision b. The specific paragraph fails to disclose any relevance or
in a legislation passed by congress which is not germane, congruent or relation to any appropriation item or to the Appropriation Act
relevant to the subject matter of the bill. as a whole.
c. There is INCONGRUITY and IRRELAVANCY between RA
FACTS: 1600 and paragraph 11 of such
1. Eusebio Garcia was a reserve officer on active duty with the AFP
2. RA 1382 (June 1955), Garcia cannot raise the defense of non-reversion DISPOSITION: Petition denied
to inactive status because he lacked accumulated active commissioned o Decision of CFI of QC, AFFIRMED
service in the AFP (9 yrs 5 mos 12 days)
3. RA 1600 (July 1956), Garcia can now raise such defense (10y 5m 5d) *Note: not sure whether it was RA 2332 or 2334 since in the case they used
4. He was a reserve officer until his REVERSION to inactive status both to refer to the same RA, it’s a typographical error I think.
pursuant to RA 2332/2334 (Nov 1960)
5. The effect of having an inactive status carried with it NO EMOLUMENTS.
He was also not employed in any other gov’t office
6. Garcia filed a case against the Sec of Nat’l Def. and the Chief of Staff of
the AFP for reinstatement, readjust his rank and pay all the emoluments
and allowance during period of inactive service.
7. His defense was that pursuant to RA 1600 he cannot be reverted to
inactive status by RA 2332/2334

ISSUES:
2. WoN Garcia’s case for reinstatement, readjustment and payment will
prosper

PROVISION:
 Paragraph 11 (unconstutional) of RA 1600
o ―..That reserve officers with at least ten years of active
accumulated commissioned service who are still on active
duty at the time of the approval of this Act shall not be
reverted to in active statues except for cause after proper
court martial proceedings or upon their request.‖
 Par 2, Sec. 19 Art Vi of the 1935 Constitution
o ― No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the
general appropriation bill unless it relates specifically to
Author: SILVER SNAKES
ATITIW vs. ZAMORA (2005)
PROVISION:
Petition:Petition for prohibition, mandamus, and declaratory relief
Petitioner: NESTOR G. ATITIW
Respondent: RONALDO B. ZAMORA, in his capacity as Executive
Secretary
Ponencia:TINGA, J.
DOCTRINE:(Prohibition on "riders" in appropriation bills)
A provision in an appropriations bill must relate specifically to some particular
appropriations and shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation to
which it relates.
RULING + RATIO:
FACTS:
1. The ratification of the 1987 Constitution ordains the creation of
autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the Cordilleras mandating
the Congress to enact organic acts pursuant to section article X of the
Constitution. Thus, by virtue of the residual powers of President Cory Aquino
she promulgated E.O 220 creating CAR.
2. Then the congress enacted R.A 6766, an act providing for organic act for
the cordillera autonomous region, a plebiscite was cast but was not approve
by the people. The court declared that E.O 220 to be still in force and effect
until properly repealed or amended.
3. Later on February 15, 2000, President Estrada signed the General
Appropriations Act of 2000 (GAA 2000) which includes the assailed special
provisions, then issued an E.O 270 to extend the implementation of the
winding up of operations of the CAR.
4. The petitioners seek the declaration of nullity of paragraph 1 of the special
provisions of RA 870 (GAA2000) directing that the appropriation for the CAR
shall be spent to wind up its activities and pay the separation and retirement
benefits of all the affected members and employees
ISSUES:
3. WoN the assailed special provisions in R.A. 8760 (2000 GA) is a
rider and as such is unconstitutional;
4. WoN the Philippine government, through congress, can unilaterally
amend/repeal E.O. No. 220;
5. WoN the republic should be ordered to honor its commitments as
spelled out in E.O. No. 220
 Article VI of the Constitution
 Sec. 1. The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the
Philippines, except to the extent reserved to the people by the
provision on initiative and referendum.
 Sec. 25 (2). No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the
general appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to some
particular appropriation therein. Any such provision or enactment
shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it
relates.
2. NO. The assailed paragraph 1 of the Special Provisions, insofar
as it limits the spending of the appropriation for CAR to the
winding up of its activities, does not constitute a rider.
- an appropriations bill covers a broader range of subject matter
and therefore includes more details compared to an ordinary bill.
The title of an appropriations bill cannot be any broader as it is
since it is not feasible to come out with a title that embraces all
the details included in an appropriations bill. The assailed
Special Provision directing appropriations for the Cordillera
Administrative Region (CAR), which provides for the
expenditures to for activities and pay separation and retirement
benefits of all affected officials and employees is not a rider. A
rider is a provision which is alien to or not germane to the subject
or purpose of the bill in which it is incorporated. The rationale
against riders is to preserve the unity of subject matter of the bill.
The Special Provision pertains to appropriations for CAR, it is
particular, unambiguous and appropriate, hence, it meets the
germaneness standard. Said paragraph meets the germaneness
standard also because it lays down a limitation or restriction on
the use of a specific appropriation item already provided in the
2000 GAA. It follows the standard that a provision in an
appropriations bill must relate specifically to some particular
appropriations.
3. YES. There is no such thing as irrepealable law.
- While it is true that E.O. No. 220 is a law as it was promulgated
by then President Aquino in the exercise of her extraordinary
legislative power under the Freedom Constitution, said E.O. is no
different from any other law.
Author: SILVER SNAKES
4. NO. The three branches of government must discharge their
respective functions within the limits of authority conferred by
the Constitution.
- the Court has no authority to compel the Executive branch to
implement the provisions of E.O. No. 220 or to restore its
budgetary allocation to its previous level.
- the implementation of E.O. No. 220 is an executive prerogative
while the sourcing of funds to support the CAR’s activities is
within the province of the legislature.

DISPOSITION: Petition is DENIED. No pronouncement as to costs.

Author: SILVER SNAKES
Fariñas vs. Executive Secretary (2003)
Petition: Certiorari and prohibition
Petitioner: RODOLFO C. FARIÑAS, MANUEL M. GARCIA, FRANCIS G.
ESCUDERO, and AGAPITO A. AQUINO, AS MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES AND ALSO AS TAXPAYERS, IN THEIR OWN
BEHALF AND IN REPRESENTATION OF THE MEMBERS OF THE
MINORITY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Respondents: THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, HON. FELICIANO R. BELMONTE, JR., SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, SECRETARY OF THE SENATE,
AND SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Ponencia: CALLEJO, SR., J
DOCTRINE:(Prohibition on "riders")
To determine whether there has been compliance with the constitutional
requirement that the subject of an act shall be expressed in its title, the Court
laid down the rule that –
Constitutional provisions relating to the subject matter and titles of statutes
should not be so narrowly construed as to cripple or impede the power of
legislation. The requirement that the subject of an act shall be expressed in
its title should receive a reasonable and not a technical construction. It is
sufficient if the title be comprehensive enough reasonably to include the
general object which a statute seeks to effect, without expressing each and
every end and means necessary or convenient for the accomplishing of that
object. Mere details need not be set forth. The title need not be an abstract
or index of the Act.
FACTS:
1. After taking up other pending matters, the House proceeded to vote on the
Bicameral Conference Committee Report on the disagreeing provisions of
HB No. 9000 and SB No. 1742. The House approved the report with 125
affirmative votes, 3 negative votes and no abstention. In explaining their
negative votes, Reps. Fariñas and Garcia expressed their belief that Section
14 thereof was a rider. Even Rep. Escudero, who voted in the affirmative,
expressed his doubts on the constitutionality of Section 14. On the same day,
the Senate likewise approved the Bicameral Conference Committee Report
on the contrasting provisions of SB No. 1742 and HB No. 9000.
2. Thereafter, Rep. Act No. 9006 was duly signed by then Senate President
Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. and then Speaker of the House of Representatives
Feliciano R. Belmonte, Jr. and was duly certified by the Secretary of the
Senate Lutgardo B. Barbo and the Secretary General of the House of
Representatives Robert P. Nazareno as ―the consolidation of House Bill No.
9000 and Senate Bill No. 1742,‖ and ―finally passed by both Houses on
February 7, 2001.‖ President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed Rep. Act No.
9006 into law on February 12, 2001.
3. A petition was filed seeking the Court to declare unconstitutional Section
14 of RA 9006 or ―The Act to Enhance the Holding of Free, Orderly, Honest,
Peaceful and Credible Elections Through Fair Election Practices‖ as it
repealed Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code mandating the ipso jure
resignation from public office of one who filed his certificate of candidacy,
except for President and Vice-President. It is the petitioners’ contention that
the repeal of Section 67 is a rider on the said law, the same embracing more
than one subject, inconsistent to what the constitution mandates.
ISSUE:
1. WoN Section 14 of RA 9006 is a rider.
PROVISION:
 ART VI, 1987 Philippine Constitution
 Section 25. (2) No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the
general appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to some
particular appropriation therein. Any such provision or enactment
shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it
relates.
Section 26. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only
one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.
RULING + RATIO:
5. No.
Section 14 is not a rider. The purported dissimilarity of
Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code, which imposes a limitation
on elective officials who run for an office other than the one they are
holding, to the other provisions of the contested law, which deal with
the lifting of the ban on the use of media for election propaganda,
doesn’t violate the ―one subject- one title rule‖. The Court has held
that an act having a single general subject, indicated in its title, may
contain any number of provisions, no matter how diverse they may
be, so long as they are not inconsistent with or foreign to the general
subject, and they may be considered in furtherance of such subject
by providing for the method and means of carrying out the general
subject.
The title of Rep. Act No. 9006 reads: ―An Act to Enhance the
Holding of Free, Orderly, Honest, Peaceful and Credible Elections
through Fair Election Practices.‖
The Court is convinced that the title and the objectives of
Rep. Act No. 9006 are comprehensive enough to include the repeal
Author: SILVER SNAKES
of Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code within its contemplation.
To require that the said repeal of Section 67 of the Code be
expressed in the title is to insist that the title be a complete index of
its content.

DISPOSITION: DISMISSED.
Author: SILVER SNAKES
DEMETRIA V ALBA (1987)
Petition: Prohibition with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction
Petitioner: DEMETRIO G. DEMETRIA, M.P., AUGUSTO S. SANCHEZ,
M.P., ORLANDO S. MERCADO, M.P., HONORATO Y. AQUINO, M.P.,
ZAFIRO L. RESPICIO, M.P., DOUGLAS R. CAGAS, M.P., OSCAR F.
SANTOS, M.P., ALBERTO G. ROMULO, M.P., CIRIACO R. ALFELOR,
M.P., ISIDORO E. REAL, M.P., EMIGDIO L. LINGAD, M.P., ROLANDO C.
MARCIAL, M.P., PEDRO M. MARCELLANA, M.P., VICTOR S. ZIGA, M.P.,
and ROGELIO V. GARCIA. M.P.
Respondent: HON. MANUEL ALBA in his capacity as the MINISTER OF
THE BUDGET and VICTOR MACALINGCAG in his capacity as the
TREASURER OF THE PHILIPPINES
Ponencia: FERNAN, J
DOCTRINE: (Paragraph 5: Direct Violation)
Judicial Power: Indeed, where the legislature or the executive branch is
acting within the limits of its authority, the judiciary cannot and ought not to
interfere with the former. But where the legislature or the executive acts
beyond the scope of its constitutional powers, it becomes the duty of the
judiciary to declare what the other branches of the government had assumed
to do as void.
Indeed, where the legislature or the executive branch is acting within the
limits of its authority, the judiciary cannot and ought not to interfere with the
former. But where the legislature or the executive acts beyond the scope of
its constitutional powers, it becomes the duty of the judiciary to declare what
the other branches of the government had assumed to do as void.
FACTS:
8. Petitioners, who filed the instant petition as concerned citizens of this
country, as members of the National Assembly/Batasan Pambansa
representing their millions of constituents, as parties with general interest
common to all the people of the Philippines, and as taxpayers whose
vital interests may be affected by the outcome of the reliefs prayed for.
9. Petitioners assailed the constitutionality of the first paragraph of Section
44 of Presidential Decree No. 1177, otherwise known as the "Budget
Reform Decree of 1977."
10. The grounds raised in the petition are as follows:
a. SECTION 44 OF THE 'BUDGET REFORM DECREE OF 1977'
INFRINGES UPON THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW BY
AUTHORIZING THE ILLEGAL TRANSFER OF PUBLIC
MONEYS.
b. SECTION 44 OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1177 IS
REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION AS IT FAILS TO
SPECIFY THE OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSES FOR WHICH
THE PROPOSED TRANSFER OF FUNDS ARE TO BE MADE.
c. SECTION 44 OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1177 ALLOWS
THE PRESIDENT TO OVERRIDE THE SAFEGUARDS, FORM
AND PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED BY THE CONSTITUTION IN
APPROVING APPROPRIATIONS.
d. SECTION 44 OF THE SAME DECREE AMOUNTS TO AN
UNDUE DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS TO THE
EXECUTIVE.
e. THE THREATENED AND CONTINUING TRANSFER OF
FUNDS BY THE PRESIDENT AND THE IMPLEMENTATION
THEREOF BY THE BUDGET MINISTER AND THE
TREASURER OF THE PHILIPPINES ARE WITHOUT OR IN
EXCESS OF THEIR AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION.
ISSUES:
6. WoN Paragraph 1 of Sec. 44 of PD No. 1177 is Unconstitutional.
PROVISION:
1. ART 6 of Philippines Constitution
a. Sec. 16[5]. No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer
of appropriations, however, the President, the Prime
Minister, the Speaker, the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court, and the heads of constitutional commissions may by
law be authorized to augment any item in the general
appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in
other items of their respective appropriation.
2. Sec. 44 of PD. 1177
a. The President shall have the authority to transfer any fund,
appropriated for the different departments, bureaus, offices
and agencies of the Executive Department, which are
included in the General Appropriations Act, to any program,
project or activity of any department, bureau, or office
included in the General Appropriations Act or approved after
its enactment.
RULING + RATIO:
6. YES. Section 44 of PD. 1177 is unconstitutional.
Author: SILVER SNAKES
a. Paragraph 1 of Section 44 of P.D. No. 1177 unduly over
extends the privilege granted under said Section 16[5]. It
empowers the President to indiscriminately transfer funds
from one department, bureau, office or agency of the
Executive Department to any program, project or activity of
any department, bureau or office included in the General
Appropriations Act or approved after its enactment, 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, or whether or not the transfer is for the purpose of
augmenting the item to which said transfer is to be made. It
does not only completely disregard the standards set in the
fundamental law, thereby amounting to an undue delegation
of legislative powers, but likewise goes beyond the tenor
thereof. Indeed, such constitutional infirmities render the
provision in question null and void.

DISPOSITION: Petition granted.

- Paragraph 1 of Section 44 of Presidential Decree No. 1177 is
hereby declared null and void for being unconstitutional.
Author: SILVER SNAKES
Liga v. COMELEC
Petition: Prohibition with prayer for TRO
Petitioner: Liga ng mga Barangay et al
Respondent: COMELEC et al
DOCTRINE: Unused funds
Augmentation implies the existence in this Act of an item, project, activity
or purpose with an appropriation which upon implementation or
subsequent evaluation of needed resources is determined to be deficient.
In no case, therefore, shall non-existent item, project, activity, purpose or
object of expenditure be funded by augmentation from savings or by the
use of appropriations authorized otherwise in this Act
Funds needed by the Commission to defray the expenses for the holding
of regular and special elections, referenda and plebiscites shall be
provided in the regular appropriation of the Commission which, upon
request, shall immediately be released to the Commission. In case of
deficiency, the amount so provided shall be augmented from the special
activities funds in the general appropriation act and from those
specifically appropriated for the purpose in special laws.
FACTS:
 Petitioners claim that in the General Apropriation Act of
1994, only One Hundred Thirty Seven Million Eight
Hundred Seventy Eight Thousand Pesos
(P137,878,000.00) were appropriated by Congress for the
holding of the 1994 barangay elections. By early 1994,
according to peti- tioners, Congress itself had made an
assessment that such appropriated sum would be
insufficient to defray the cost of holding the said elections.
 In order to augment the said appropriated amount,
petitioners allege that the respondents have threatened
and are about to effect a transfer or re-allocation of the
following amounts to be sourced from the executive and
legislative branches of Government to respondent
Commission on Elections (COMELEC);
(a) One Hundred Eighty Million Pesos
(P180,000,000) from the appropriation of the
Department of Interior and Local Government
(DILG).
o (b) One Hundred Million Pesos (P100,000,000)
from the Countryside Development Fund; Seventy
Million Pesos (P70,000,000) from the Senate and
Thirty Million Pesos (P30,000,000) from the
House of Representatives; and
o (c) Forty Three Million Pesos (P43,000,000) from
the Internal Revenue Allotments (IRA) of
Provinces, Cities and Municipalities.
 Deliberating on the seriousness of the aforementioned allegations
in the Petition, and because of the proximity of the 9 May
barangay elections, the Court on 21 April 1994 resolved to
require respondents to comment on the Petition within a non-
extendible period of five (5) days.
 Respondent COMELEC particularly alleges that it intends to fund
the forthcoming barangay elections from the P137,878,000
appropriated by Congress for the said elections and from its
(COMELEC's) own savings resulting from unused funds originally
intended for the conduct and supervision of elections and other
political exercises such as funds for the sectoral elections which
did not take place and possibly from a portion of its (COMELEC's)
modernization program for which the amount of more than five
hundred million pesos (P500,000,000) had been appropriated by
Congress.
 Respondents maintain that funds of local government units may
also be used to help defray the cost of the forthcoming barangay
elections. For authority, they cite Opinion No. 51, s. 1994 of the
Honorable, the Secretary of Justice, dated 19 April 1994, issued
upon request from the COMELEC, wherein the former takes the
view that under Section 50 of the Omnibus Election Code, local
government units are required to appropriate funds for barangay
elections.
Author: SILVER SNAKES
work, activity or purpose for which the appropriation is authorized,
or arising from unpaid compensation and related costs pertaining
to vacant positions and leaves of absence without pay.
ISSUES:
7. WoN there is enough evidence that COMELEC was attempting to
effect the transfer of funds

PROVISION:
ART 6 Sec. 25 (5). No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of
appropriations; however, 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 Constitutional Commissions may, by
law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law
for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective
appropriations.
 Article IV of the same Code dealing with "Election of Barangay
Officials" :
Sec. 50. Funding. — Local governments shall appropriate such
funds to defray such necessary and reasonable expenses of the
members of the board of election tellers, board of canvassers and
the printing of election forms and procurement of other election
paraphernalia, and the installation of polling booths.
RULING + RATIO:
NO. the threat to pursue the scheme, if ever there was one, existed only
in newspaper reports which could have misled the general public,
including the petitioners, into believing that the same emanated from
unimpeccable sources.
The Court acknowledges that petitioners have displayed vigilance and
acted with the best of intentions when they filed the present petitions. Yet,
it would have been more prudent for them to have first obtained an official
statement or at least confirmation from respondents as to the veracity of
the reports contained in the said news item — which could itself have
been quoted out of context by the reporter concerned or simply
abbreviated to meet the day's deadline.
DISPOSITION: Petition dismissed for lack of merit.

General Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1994

Sec. 17. Use of Savings. The President of the Philippines, the

President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the
Heads of Constitutional Commission under Article IX of the
Constitution, the Ombudsman and the Commission on Human
Rights are hereby authorized to augment any item in this Act from
their respective offices from savings in other items of their
respective appropriations.

Sec. 19. Meaning of Savings and Augmentation. Savings refers

to portions of balances of any programmed appropriation free of
any obligation or encumbrance still available after the satisfactory
completion or unavoidable discontinuance or abandonment of the
Author: SILVER SNAKES
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION INC. v. ENRIQUEZ (1994)
Petition: Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus
Petitioner: Philippine Constitution Association, 16 members of the
Senate,
Respondent: Hon. Salvador Enriquez
Ponencia: Quiason, J.
DOCTRINE: (Standard of care required)
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
Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item
in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in
other items of their respective appropriations.
FACTS:
1. House Bill No. 10900, the General Appropriation Bill of 1994 (GAB of
1994), was passed and approved by both houses of Congress on
December 17, 1993.
2. It imposed conditions and limitations on certain items of
appropriations in the proposed budget previously submitted by the
President. It also authorized members of Congress to propose and
identify projects in the "pork barrels" allotted to them and to realign
their respective operating budgets.
3. On December 30, 1993, the President signed the bill into law,
making it as Republic Act No. 7663, entitled "AN ACT
APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE OPERATION OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES FROM JANUARY ONE TO
DECEMBER THIRTY ONE, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND NINETY-
FOUR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES" (GAA of 1994). On the
same day, the President delivered his Presidential Veto Message,
specifying the provisions of the bill he vetoed and on which he
imposed certain conditions.
4 cases questioning the GAB 1994
1.) In G.R. No. 113105, Philippine Constitution Association
(PHILCONSA) et al. prayed for a writ of prohibition to declare as
unconstitutional and void: (a) Article 41 on the Countrywide
Development Fund or ―pork barrels,‖ the special provision in Article I
entitled Realignment of Allocation for Operational Expenses, (b)
Article 48 on the Appropriation for Debt Service or the amount
appropriated under said Article 48 in excess of the P37.9 B allocated
for the DECS; and (c) the veto of the President of the Special
Provision of Article 48 of the GAA of 1994
2.) In G.R. No. 113174, 16 Senators question: (1) the constitutionality of
the conditions imposed by the President in the items of the GAA of
1994: (a) for the Supreme Court, (b) Commission on Audit (COA), (c)
Ombudsman, (d) Commission on Human Rights, (CHR), (e) Citizen
Armed Forces Geographical Units (CAFGU's) and (f) State
Universities and Colleges (SUC's); and (2) the constitutionality of the
veto of the special provision in the appropriation for debt service.
3.) In G.R. No. 113766, Senators Romulo and Tañada together with the
Freedom from Debt Coalition, a non-stock domestic corporation,
sued as taxpayers, challenging the constitutionality of the
Presidential veto of the special provision in the appropriations for
debt service and the automatic appropriation of funds therefor.
4.) In G.R. No. 113888, Senators Romulo and Tañada contest the
constitutionality of: (1) the veto on four special provisions added to
items in the GAA of 1994 for the Armed Forces of the Philippines
(AFP) and the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH);
and (2) the conditions imposed by the President in the
implementation of certain appropriations for the CAFGU's, the
DPWH, and the National Housing Authority (NHA).
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not petitioners have locus standi
2. Whether or not GAA of 1994 is unconstitutional
a. Countrywide Development Fund / pork barrels (Article 48) –
encroachment by legislature on executive power; power of
appropriation is implementation of the law
b. Realignment of Operating Expenses (Special Provision
1) – contrary to Article 6 Section 25(5)
c. Highest Priority for Debt Service (Article 48) – and not
education in allocation of budget
3. Whether or not the veto of the president on four special provisions of
Article 48 of the GAA 1994 is unconstitutional and void?
Author: SILVER SNAKES
a. Provision on debt ceiling
b. Funds of State Universities and Colleges (SUC’s)
c. Road Maintenance ratio (70% administrative/ 30% contract)
d. AFP medicines
e. Military Equipment
f. AFP pension funds
g. Condition on the deactivation of CAGFU’s
h. Conditions on the appropriation for SC, Ombudsman, COA,
CHR
PROVISION:
Article 6 Section 25(5), Article VI of the Constitution. Said section provides:
No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations:
however, 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 Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be
authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for
their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective
appropriations.
GAB 1994 Article 48 (Appropriations for Debt Service) of the GAA of 1994
which provides:
Special Provisions
1.Use of the Fund. The appropriation authorized herein shall be used for
payment of principal and interest of foreign and domestic indebtedness;
PROVIDED, That any payment in excess of the amount herein appropriated
shall be subject to the approval of the President of the Philippines with the
concurrence of the Congress of the Philippines; PROVIDED, FURTHER,
That in no case shall this fund be used to pay for the liabilities of the Central
Bank Board of Liquidators.
2.Reporting Requirement. The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas and the
Department of Finance shall submit a quarterly report of actual foreign and
domestic debt service payments to the House Committee on Appropriations
and Senate Finance Committee within one (1) month after each quarter
(GAA of 1944, pp. 1266).
RULING + RATIO
1. Yes. Petitioners have locus standi
The Court held that the members of Congress have the legal standing to
question the validity of acts of the Executive which injures them in their
person or the institution of Congress to which they belong. In the latter
case, the acts cause derivative but nonetheless substantial injury which
can be questioned by members of Congress. In the absence of a claim
that the contract in question violated the rights of petitioners or
impermissibly intruded into the domain of the Legislature, petitioners
have no legal standing to institute the instant action in their capacity as
members of Congress.
b. Whether or not GAA of 1994 is unconstitutional
a. Countrywide Development Fund / pork barrels (Article 48) –
constitutional; not encroachment of executive power
 The power of appropriation lodged in Congress carries with it the
power to specify the project or activity to be funded under the
appropriation law. It can be as detailed and as broad as Congress
wants it to be.
 The CDF is explicit that it shall be used "for infrastructure,
purchase of ambulances and computers and other priority projects
and activities and credit facilities to qualified beneficiaries…"
 It was Congress itself that determined the purposes for the
appropriation. Executive function under the CDF involves
implementation of the priority projects specified in the law. The
authority given to the members of Congress is only to propose and
identify projects to be implemented by the President.
 Hence, under Article 48 of the GAA of 1994, if the proposed
projects qualify for funding under the CDF, it is the President who
shall implement them. In short, the proposals and identifications
made by the members of Congress are merely recommendatory.
b. Realignment of Operating Expenses (Special Provision 1)
 The members only determine the necessity of the realignment of
the savings in the allotments for their operating expenses but it is
the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives who shall approve the realignment.
c. Highest Priority for Debt Service (Article 48) – constitutional;
exercises its power to respond to the imperatives of the national
interest and for the attainment of other state policies or objectives.
Author: SILVER SNAKES
 The constitutional provision which directs the State shall assign the
highest budgetary priority to education is merely directory.
 As stated in Guingona, Jr. v. Carague: While it is true that under
Section 5(5), Article XIV of the Constitution, Congress is mandated
to ―assign the highest budgetary priority to education‖ it does not
thereby follow that Congress is deprived of its power to respond to
the imperatives of the national interest and for the attainment of
other state policies or objectives.
c. Whether or not the veto of the president on four special
provisions of Article 48 of the GAA 1994 is unconstitutional and
void?
Any provision which does not relate to any particular item, or which
extends in its operation beyond an item of appropriation, is
considered ―an inappropriate provision‖ which can be vetoed
separately from an item.
Any provision blocking an administrative action in implementing a law
requiring legislative approval of executive acts must be incorporated
in a separate substantive bill.
a. Provision on debt ceiling – VOID
Special Provision on Debt Ceiling – Congress provided for a
debt-ceiling. Vetoed by the Pres. w/o vetoing the entire
appropriation for debt service. The said provisions are germane
to & have direct relation w/ debt service. They are appropriate
provisions & cannot be vetoed w/o vetoing the entire
item/appropriation.
b. Funds of State Universities and Colleges (SUC’s) - VALID
Special Provision on Revolving Funds for SCU’s – said provision
allows for the use of income & creation of revolving fund for
SCU’s. Provision for Western Visayas State Univ. & Leyte State
Colleges vetoed by Pres. Other SCU’s enjoying the privilege do
so by existing law. Pres. merely acted in pursuance to existing
law.
c. Road Maintenance ratio (70% administrative/ 30% contract) -
VOID
Special Provision on Road Maintenance – Congress specified
30% ratio for works for maintenance of roads be contracted
according to guidelines set forth by DPWH. Vetoed by the Pres.
w/o vetoing the entire appropriation. It is not an inappropriate
provision; it is not alien to the subj. of road maintenance &
cannot be veoted w/o vetoing the entire appropriation.
d. AFP medicines - VOID
Special Provision on AFP Medicines - Being directly related to
and inseparable from the appropriation item on purchases of
medicines by the AFP, the special provision cannot be vetoed by
the President without also vetoing the said item.
e. Military Equipment – VALID
Special Provision on Purchase of Military Equip. – AFP
modernization, prior approval of Congress required before
release of modernization funds. It is the so-called legislative
veto. Any prov. blocking an admin. action in implementing a law
or requiring legislative approval must be subj. of a separate law.
f. AFP pension funds- VALID
Special Provision on Use of Savings for AFP Pensions – allows
Chief of Staff to augment pension funds through the use of
savings. According to the Constitution, only the Pres. may
exercise such power pursuant to a specific law. Properly vetoed.
VETO VALID.
g. Condition on the deactivation of CAGFU’s – VALID
Special Provision on Conditions for de-activation of CAFGU’s –
use of special fund for the compensation of the said CAFGU’s.
Vetoed, Pres. requires his prior approval. It is also an
amendment to existing law (PD No. 1597 & RA No. 6758). A
provision in an appropriation act cannot be used to repeal/amend
existing laws.
h. Conditions on the appropriation for SC, Ombudsman, COA,
CHR - VALID
By setting guidelines or conditions in his veto, the President is
simply exercising his constitutional duty to implement the laws
faithfully.
Author: SILVER SNAKES
Author: SILVER SNAKES
SANCHEZ v COMMISSION ON AUDIT (2008)
Petition: Certiorari
Petitioner: Andres Sanchez, Leonardo Regala, Rafael D. Barata, Norman
Agbayani, Cesar Sarino
Respondent: Commission on Audit
Ponencia: Tinga, J.
DOCTRINE: (Standard of care required)
The Constitutional requirement that the subject of an act shall be expressed in its title
should be reasonably construed so as not to interfere unduly with the enactment of
necessary legislation. It should be given a practical, rather than technical,
construction. It should be a sufficient compliance with such requirement if the title
expresses the general subject and all the provisions of the statute are germane to that
general subject. (Sumulong v. The Commission on Elections, 73 Phil. 288, 291)
FACTS:
1. Republic Act 7180, otherwise known as the General Appropriations
Act of 1992, was passed by Congress. The National Budget provided an
appropriation to the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG)
the amount of Php 75,000,000.00 for the department’s Capability
Building Program. This was a program for enriching and furthering local
autonomy.
a. Under the Special Provisions of the CBP, it empowered the
DILG secretary to administer and manage the funds. Like
most government projects, savings from the national budget
can be transferred to the CBP to strengthen it.
2. Atty. Hiram Mendoza, a Project Director of an “Ad Hoc Task Force for
Inter-Agency Coordination to Implement Local Autonomy” proposed to
Deputy Sec. De La Serna the creation of a satellite task force to
implement local autonomy. This task force would create modules,
programs, and the like, under the Office of the President. The Deputy
Sec. approved the proposal. The task force’s estimated budget was Php
2,388,000.00
3. Cesar Sarino, the Executive Secretary of the DILG, approved the same
proposal. A cash advance of Php 600,000.00 was made, through two
separate disbursements of Php 300,000.00
a. A breakdown of the first cash advance’s expense was
submitted to the DILG, without receipts. Further, the
second cash advance was not even given a breakdown:
i. Payroll P 226,000.00
ii. Office rentals 60,000.00
iii. Office furnitures 7,500.00
iv. Office supplies 3,682.50
v. Xerox 300.30
vi. Transportation expense 406.00
vii. Bank charges 75.00
viii. Miscellaneous 60.00
ix. TOTAL P298,023.80
4. The Department Auditor (DILG’s resident auditor) took cognizance of
this transfer, citing that: there was no legal basis for the creation
of an ad hoc task force, the transfer was contrary to the limits
and requirements set out in the GAA, and that the second cash
advance was not yet held for accounting. A Notice of
Disallowance was filed to the Department Secretary.
5. Sarino, the DepSec, argues that: the transfer of the funds is within
the ambit of the law, as these funds were being used for public
purposes, and that the issue of WoN the transfer was valid is an
issue for the courts to decide, and that, according to the case of
Binamira v Garrucho, acts committed by department heads,
unless disapproved by the President, are presumptively
considered acts of the President himself and are therefore valid.
6. In response, the Department Auditor avers: while they were indeed
for public purposes, they were not the purposes contemplated
by the GAA’s appropriation for the CBP. Public funds must be
used specifically for the purpose they were appropriated for.
7. The Commission on Audit upheld the Notice of Disallowance.
a. However, Commissioner Ursal wrote a dissenting opinion,
agreeing that the transfer of funds from the CBP budget to
the Ad Hoc Task Force was indeed an act of the President.
8. Petitioners argue further: the Notice of Disallowance had no legal
basis, the Ad Hoc Task Force is actually part and parcel of the
CBP’s goals, thus the transfer is valid.
9. The OSG agreed with petitioners initially, citing that the Ad Hoc Task
Force indeed augmented the CBP’s goals, hence the transfer was
valid.
10. The COA argue: we have acted within our mandate in upholding
the notice of disallowance.
11. The OSG eventually agreed with the COA itself, citing that if an Ad
Hoc Task Force was indeed needed, it should have been done
through the Local Government Academy, with approval of its Board
of Trustees, pursuant to the GAA.
a. Further, the findings of the OSG reveal that a) the 600,000
pesos cash advance was not properly liquidated, there
was no proper financial plan for the Ad Hoc Task Force,
no breakdown of projects, no receipts, no NOTHING.
i. Hence, since bad faith is evident, the COA was
acting well within its mandate in upholding the
notice.
Author: SILVER SNAKES
12. The COA adds: the CBP fund may be a regular appropriation, but it of transferring funds.
partakes the nature of a trust fund. It was allocated for a specific i. COURT: This is a gratuitous argument. In the first
purpose. place, Sec. 25(5) of Art. VI clearly limits the authority
of transferring funds to SEVEN people.
ii. It cannot be maintained that when the Constitution
ISSUES: stated ―The President‖ in this provision, it meant
a.) Is there a legal basis for the cash transfer from the DILG’s CBP fund those who shared in the same authority BY LEGAL
to the Ad Hoc Task Force under the Office of the President? FICTION.
b. Even if the President himself approved of the fund transfer
b.) Were the conditions and requisites for a valid transfer of funds from the CBP to the Ad Hoc Task Force, it would be
observed? INVALID because IT WASN’T TRANSFERRED FROM
SAVINGS.
i. The Constitution is clear: transfer of funds may only
PROVISION: be taken from SAVINGS.
ii. How can there be savings when the transfer was
Section 25. (1) The Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by
the President for the operation of the Government as specified in the budget. The form,
conducted at the BEGINNING OF THE
content, and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law. GOVERNMENT’S FISCAL YEAR? AFTER THE
PASSING OF THE NATIONAL BUDGET?
(2) No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriations bill unless iii. Further investigation of the Court revealed that even
it relates specifically to some particular appropriation therein. Any such provision or
if it were the beginning of the fiscal year, NO
enactment shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it relates.
SAVINGS had carried over from the previous budget
(3) The procedure in approving appropriations for the Congress shall strictly follow the of the DILG.
procedure for approving appropriations for other departments and agencies. c. Contrary to jurisprudence:
i. The Court has declared in the landmark case of
(4) A special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose for which it is intended, and shall be
supported by funds actually available as certified by the National Treasurer, or to be raised by a Demetria v Alba that the President cannot transfer
corresponding revenue proposal therein. funds from one department to another, regardless of
the purpose. And this case was decided under the
(5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the
President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the
1973 Constitution!
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, 1. How can an act invalid during the Marcos
by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for era be valid NOW?
their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.
b.) NO
(6) Discretionary funds appropriated for particular officials shall be disbursed only for
public purposes to be supported by appropriate vouchers and subject to such guidelines as a. Sec. 19 of the GAA of 1992 states: Meaning of Savings and
may be prescribed by law. Augmentation: Savings refer to portions or balances of any programmed
appropriation free of any obligation or encumbrance still available after the
(7) If, by the end of any fiscal year, the Congress shall have failed to pass the general satisfactory completion or unavoidable discontinuance or abandonment of
appropriations bill for the ensuing fiscal year, the general appropriations law for the the work, activity or purpose for which the appropriation is authorized, or
preceding fiscal year shall be deemed re-enacted and shall remain in force and effect until the arising from unpaid compensation and related costs pertaining to vacant
general appropriations bill is passed by the Congress. positions and leaves of absence without pay. Augmentation implies the
existence in this Act of an item, project, activity or purpose with an
appropriation which upon implementation or subsequent evaluation of
needed resources is determined to be deficient. In no case, therefore, shall
RULING + RATIO a non-existent item, project, activity, purpose or object of expenditure be
funded by augmentation from savings or by the use of appropriations
a.) NONE authorized otherwise in this act
a. Petitioner argues that, as the department head, his acts are
clothed with the same authority as that of the President’s. It b. Clearly, there are two requisites:
is under this argument that he couches the validity of the act i. there must be savings in the programmed
Author: SILVER SNAKES
appropriation of the transferring agency
ii. there must be an existing item, project or activity
with an appropriation in the receiving agency to
which the savings will be transferred.
c. Actual Savings is a sine qua non to the transfer of funds. In
this case, there were no actual savings!
d. For the second requisite, the Court ruled that the Ad Hoc
Task Force was SHADY. Temporary in nature, vague
objectives, obviously not an augmentation to the DILG’s
projects, accountable to the Office of the President, no
evidence as to how it was created, who’s in it, where it came
from, and in fact the 600k cash advance could not be held
accounted for!

DISPOSITION: PETITION DISMISSED, COA RULING AFFIRMED