271059/271347/E-02472/E-04036  Separate Concurring Opinion: Justice Japar B. Dimaampao — Official PDF

Separate Concurring Opinion 18 G.R. Nos. 271059, 27I34'i'., E-02472, and E-04036 appropriations." 55 What is also clear from the foregoi'ng set-up is that it betrays _the nature of unprogrammed appropriations as a standby authority since, as m<mtioned, it allows PAPs listed therein to be furided ~head of those under programmed appropriations based only on the determination of the Executive. - Discernibly, this is a danger that will always be present in codifying an individual ·standard. Iris on1y the adoption of the aggregate standard that could ensure that all programmed appropriations have been funded before the excess may be used for unprogrammed appropriations. Whence, I agree with the ponencia that the existence of an individual trigger cannot be sanctioned. Special Provision 1 (b) of subsection XLIII must likewise be declared unconstitutional in the absence of , any, ,sufficientstatidard to guide the allocation of new revenue collections. Proceeding from the above disquisitions, .it may appear that a reasonable argument may be a,qvanced tliat the second trigger under the 2026 GAA, i.e., that the n~w revenue, collections or those arising from new tax or non-tax sources. which irre not part of,· nor included in, the original revenue sources reflected-in the BESF, may justify a divergent treatment. Aside from the fact that the pronouncements in Araullo do not squarely apply to it, the funds in such case do not take away from a source of fund that was originally conceived to prioritize programmed appropriations. After all, they are "not part of, nor included, • in,,I tlJ.e• • original• • • revenue• • sources• reflected in the BESF ." Admittedly, the realization ofsuch condition would still permit projects under unprogrammed appropriations to be funded ahead of those under the programmed appropriations. Nonetheless, in so far as these are "new" revenue collections, they cannot be said to take anything away from the programmed , appropriations, In a sense, there is:therefore no "competition" between these two types of appropriation. • The foregoing notwithstanding, such differentiation would appear to be insufficient to uphold the __ presumed validity of what is written in the 2026 GAA, given that Special Provision l(b) does not provide any standard in determining which among the unprogrammed appropriations must be funded ahead of the others from these funds; which is the second key stage where a wide latitude is exercised, as abovementioned. Parenthetically, the discussion below also applies with equal force to Special Provision l(a) of Subsection XLIII of the 2026 GAA. 55 Ponencia, p. 68. f