271059/271347/E-02472/E-04036 Dissenting Opinion: Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr. — Official PDF

Dissenting Opinion 12 G.R. Nos.271059, 271347 E-02472 & E-04036 receive. These are not minor implementation details. They are choices about national priorities. They are legislative choices- it belongs to Congress. The constitutional difficulty becomes more serious when Congress removes long planned and implementation ready projects from programmed appropriations, transfers them to unprograrnmed appropriations, and uses the freed fiscal space for other projects. The result is a budget that appears complete when enacted but is, in truth, provisional. Some projects are given certain funding. Others are placed behind fiscal triggers and exposed to executive selection. The authority to decide which projects will proceed is thus exercised not entirely through legislation, but partly through post enactment executive action. In sum, while flexibility in public finance may be necessary, it must not become a substitute for Ie'gislative judgment. Efficiency cannot justify the surrender of accountability. The power of the pt1rse is not merely the power to authorize a cefling. It is the responsibility to decide, in public and through law, how the people's money will be spent. Where Congress leaves that decision unfinished and allows the Executive to complete it after enactment, constitutional boundaries disappear. When Congress and the Executive fail us, the Court is duty bound to protect and safeguard the money of the Filipino people. FOR THESE REASONS, I vote to declare UNCONSTITUTIONAL the challenged system of unprogrammed appropriations as it allows post enactment determination of specific projects, amounts, priorities, or beneficiaries by the Executive. ~- ~~ TONIO T. KHO, JR. Associate Justice CERTIFIED TRUE COPY ~ MARIA CECILIA M. CAPUNPON Deputy Clerk of Court OCC-En Banc, Supreme Court