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

Separate Concurring Opinion 25 G.R. Nos. 271059, 271347, E-02472, and E-04036 Among others, such doctrine would mean that, moving forward, the Court must compare each appropriation as proposed under the NEP and BESF, on one hand, and the final version thereof in the ensuing GAA, on the other. Applied to the present case where the increase in the 2025 GAA is being questioned, the Court must now look not only at the overall increase from PHP 281.9 Billion to PHP 731.4 Billion in the sai4 GAA, but also the change in each item of appropriation contained therein. Aside from this, the ponencia's conclusions - including its interpretation of Book VI, Chapter IV, Section 25 - might already go against the purpose of the constitutional prohibition under Article VI, Section 25 (1), which is to avoid a deficit in the budget. On this note, albeit merely a minute resolution, the Court's ruling in Andres Sarmiento, et al. vs. The Treasurer of the Philippines and the Secretary of Budget and Management & Philippine Constitution Association, Exequiel B. Garcia and Ramon B. Gonzales vs. Hon. Celso Gangan, Chairman, Commission on Audit and Hon. Salvador Enriquez, Secretary of Budget & Management73 is enlightening, thus: Petitioners contend that Congress, in the GAA of 1996, increased the budget proposals of the President, in violation of Sec. 25 (1 ), Article VI of the Constitution which provides:· "Sec. 25 (I) The Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the President for the operat10n of the Government as •specified in the budget. The form, content, and manner of preparation of the budget shall, be prescribed by law." They stress that the phrase "appropriations" "as specified in the budget" refers to individual items of appropriations which Congress may not increase. For his part, the Solicitor General claims that the phrase "for the operation of the government" means that Congress is enjoined from increasing the total budget for the operation of the government as recommended by the President, not the individual items of appropriations. We agree. Records of the 1986 Constitutional Commission 2 Pp.107-108; 170-171. reveals that the purpose of the above-quoted provision is to avoid the possibility of a big budget deficit if Congress were given an unbridled hand in passing upon the appropriations recommended by the President as specified in the budget. The constitutional prohibition against such increase is an assurance that the expected income ·of the government will be sufficient for the operational expenses of its different , agencies and projects specified in.the.appropriations .law. An appropriation bill has been defined as a measure before the legislative body authorizing the expenditure of public money and specifying the amount, manner and purpose of the various items of expenditure. Words and Phrases, 3 Words and Phrases, Vol. 3A, p. 479. Thus, Congress has the prerogative 73 G.R. Nos. 125680 & 126313, September 4, 2001 [Unsigned Resolution, En Banc].