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

I Separate: , Concurring OpinionI ' 6 ' G.R. Nos. 271059, 271347, E-02472, and E-04036 existed in the first place, or whether Congress evaluated the reason for the certification in accordance with appropriate and reasonable standards such as Republic Act No. 10121 or the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of2010,7 as argued by thepetitioners.8 With this framework, the Court, instead of investigating the factual bases of the certification, would primarily ascertain how• discretion was exercised by a co-equal branch of government, i.e., Congress. Applying the foregoing approach herein, the challenge posed vis-a-vis the certification of House Bill No. 8980 would have to be denied insofar as they bring to the fore the gravity of the factual basis for the emergency.9 As well, the same failed to impute any grave abuse of discretion on the part of Congress, 10 to whom the relief they are seeking will be properly di~ected. As such, I am one with theponencia in concluding that petitioners' stance on this ' point does not hold water. • • • • • • • , • • • The issue relating to the constitutionality of unprogrammed appropriations per se does not present a political question. At the outset, I would like to address the Office of the Solicitor General's (OSG) postulation. that the Court cannot exercise its expanded power of judicial review to assail the inclusion of unprogrammed appropriations in the GAA. The claim is that the two majoritarian branches of government, i.e., the legislature and the executive, who also have the independent obligation to interpret the Constitution, have already concluded that unprogrammed appropriations in the GAA are necessary to meet the needs of the country, and are not in derogation of the fundamentaLlaw. 11 The expanded power of judicial review cannot be relied upon to assail the , inclusion of unprogrammed . appropriations . in. the , GAA since the determination of the programs to be funded, the conditions governing their implementation, and the allocation of public resources are thus matters that principally fall within the constitutional prerogatives of the political departments. 12 I could not agree less. To my mind, there .is a textually demonstrable standard that is expressly stated in the Constitution - the violation of which the petitions have 7 Dated May 27,2010. 8 See TSN, June 9, 2026, p. 92. 9 Rollo (G.R. No. 271347), vol. 1, p. 19. io Id. 11 OSG Memorandum, pp. 65-66. 12 Id. at 69. i