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

Separate Concurring Opinion 2 G.R. Nos. 271059, 271347, E-02472, and E-04036 SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION DIMAAMPAO, J.: I concur in the ponencia. I take this opportunity, nonetheless, to expound on some of the crucial concepts that have been discussed therein: The petitions failed to demonstrate that •• grave abuse of discretion amounting to • lack or excess of Jurisdiction att~nded the certification of urgency of House Bill No. 8980. Article VI, Section 26, paragraph 2 of the Constitution prescribes the procedure on how bills are passed into laws and provides for a mechanism for expediting their enactment in emergency situations, viz.: (2) No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal. (Emphasis supplied) Invoking this provision, House Bill No. 8980, the precursor to Republic • Act No. 11975 or the 2024 General Appropriatioris Act (GAA), was certified as urgent in order to: (1) address the need to maintain continuous government operations; (2) expedite the funding of various programs, projects, and activities for fiscal year 2024; and (3) ensure budgetary preparedness that would enable the government to effectively perform its mandate. 1 In determining that the President did not commit grave abuse of discretion, the ponencia elucidated that the terms "public calamity" and "emergency" are "broad and dynamic concepts" that give the President the necessary flexibility during unforeseen crises. 2 Moreover, even with a presidential certification, it is "up to the leadership of both houses of Congress to decide on whether they will need some more time for their members and constituents to peruse the General Appropriations Bill after the third reading or submission of the bicameral conference committee report."3 In this regard, the ponencia acknowledges that the certification is "not a command for Congress" but rather a "signal of urgency of the passage of the law."4 Ponencia, pp. 29-30. Id at 30-31. Id. at 32. 4 Id. 1