271059/271347/E-02472/E-04036 Concurring Opinion: Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo — Official PDF

Concurring Opinion 10 G.R. Nos. 271059, 271347, E-02472, and E-04036 beyond the procedural aspects of the duties of Congress and begins to bear on the very integrity of the law itself, thereby already affecting the rights of the public. As such, I must wholeheartedly agree with Calleja v. Executive Secretary'4 in emphasizing that the president's determination of the existence of an emergency or calamity is dependent on the exigencies of each circumstance. 35 In the instant case, and taking all the foregoing into consideration, I •concur with the ponencia in its conclusion that no grave abuse of discretion was committed when the president certified House Bill No. 8980 as urgent. The reason given of the need to maintain continuous government operations, expedite the funding of various P APs, and ensure budgetary preparedness provides sufficient basis for the certification; neither is there any evidence that applying the exception to the requirements under Article VI, Section 26(2) in this case compromised the budget preparation process or adversely affected the rights of the public. The Bicameral Conference Committee is not limited, in reconciling any extant conflict between the versions ofthe two houses of Congress, to the specific subject matter of the conflicting provisions. The important consideration is whether the ame11dment introduced is germane to the subject matter of the bills before it. Preliminarily, as discussed in the ponencia, the issue on the power of the Bicameral Conference Committee to introduce changes in the proposed bill ( e.g., appropriation) is raised in three out of the four consolidated cases. an In both G.R. No. 271059 and G.R. No. 271347, the petitioners assail the increase in the unprogrammed appropriations of the 2024 appropriation bill which was introduced by the Bicameral Conference Committee.36 Meanwhile, in G.R. No. E-02472, petitioners assail the upward adjustment made by Congress through the Bicameral Conference Committee to the special fund items.37 In view of these, the Court identified for resolution the issue of "whether the Bicameral Conference Committee exceeded its authority when it increased the Unprogrammed Appropriations in the 2024 General Appropriations Act by PHP 449.5 billion considering that there is no ,34 91'8-B Phil. 1 (2021) [Per J. Carandang, En Banc]. 35 Id. at 269. 36 Ponencia, p. 5. 37 Id.at 13-17. I