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

Concurring Opinion 4 G.R. Nos. 271059, 271347, E-02472, and E-04036 appropriations; and consequently, Republic Act No. 12116 or the 2025 General Appropriations Act.7 The ponencia likewise finds that the increase in the allotted amounts of SAGFs under the Special Provisions of the departments/agencies in the 2025 GAA violates Chapter IV, Section 25, Book VI of Executive Order No. 292 or the Administrative Code of 1987. 8 Further, the ponencia declares that the Bicameral Conference Con:mittee gravely ab1;lsed its discretion_when_it i~creased_the unprogrammed Appropriations by PHP 449.5 billion in the 2024 GAA, thereby increasing the president's total• recommended appropriations, in violation of Article VI, Section 25(1) of the Constitution.9 Finally, the ponencia permanently prohibits the Senate, House of Representatives, Office of the Executive Secretary, and the Department of Budget and Management acting secretary from implementing Special Provision l(a) and (b), Chapter XLIII of the 2026 GAA. 10 I applaud our distinguished colleague, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, for his· astute insights and thorough explanations on the substantial issues brought before the Court. I respectfully concur with the ponencia on the following procedural and substantive issues. First, the Court may take cognizance of the case pursuant to its •expanded power of judicial review, and the requisites of judicial review have been satisfied. Furthermore, the questions raised by the petitioners strike right at the heart of the Constitutional budget process. Hence, these are issues of transcendental importance which the Court is duty-bound to resolve. 11 Second, the president did not gravely abuse his discretion when he certified House Bill No. 8980 as urgent. Inasmuch as the president's certification is subject to judicial review, his or her determination of the existence of an "emergency" or "public calamity" is dependent on the exigencies of each circumstance. In the present case, the petitioners were 7 Id. 8 Id. at 119. 9 Id. io Id. 11 Id.at21-26.