271059/271347/E-02472/E-04036  Concurring and Dissenting Opinion: Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez — Official PDF

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion 10 G.R. Nos. 271059, 271347, E-02472 & E-04036 funds,43 whether the expenditure is pursuant to a statute,44 a presidential . decree,45 an executive issuance,46 a presidential authorization,47 or an executive order.48 Here, the issue involves the unlawful expenditure of public funds corresponding to the excess amount of unprogrammed appropriations, which was the increase made by Congress beyond the amount recommended by the President. It is worthy to note tl1at the national budgeting process is a function that is shared exclusively between the executive and legislative department.49 Thus, the formulation of the national budget through the balancing of competing demands for public funds in the operation of the government is a political question"50 that was traditionally outside the purview of the Court's jurisdiction. Nevertheless, Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution expanded the scope of judicial power to cover questions that are, "not truly political in nature," which are now reviewable by the courts if only to the , ext~1;t of determining . whether_ the politkal , brffi?.ch . acted within the constitutional limits of its powers. ,i In other words, the Court is not powerless from inquiring into and very narrowly crossing the exclusive domain of the two other branches of the government when called upon to exercise its power of judicial review and determine whether or not grave abuse of discretion has been co.mmitted. II. The President's certification of House Bill No. 8980 as urgent was valid i agree that the President's certification of House Bill No. 8980 as urgent was v~Ud. In Tolenti~o v. Secretary of Finance, 52 this Court explained the effect of the President's certification of necessity in the following manner: The presidential certification dispensed with the requirement not only of printing but also that of reading the bill on separate tlays. The·pltrase "except . when the President certifies to the necessity ,;f its immediate enactment, etc." in Art. VL Section 26(2) qualifies t1.e two stated conditions before a bill can become a law: (i) the bill has passed three readings on separate days and (ii) it has been printed in its final form and dbtributed three days before it. is finally approved. 13 ,Guingona. Jr. v. Hon. Carague, 273 Phil. 443 ( 1991) f.Per J_ Gancayco, En Banc]. 44 Philippme Constitution Association, Inc. v. A1athr;ry, 124 Pl-iil 890 (1966) [Per J. Reyes, J.B.L., En Banc]. 45 - Sanidad v. Commission ol't Elections, 155 Phil. 303 (1976) [Per J. Martin, En Banc]. 46 Gonzales v. Hechanuv"a, 118 PhH. j 665 (1963) [Per J Coucepci.6n]. 41 Jloilo Palay and Corn Planters Asscciation, Inc. v. Peiiciano, 121 Phil. 358 (I 965) [Per J. Bautista Angelo]. 48 Pelaez v. Auditor Genera!, 122 Phil. 965 (1965) [Per J. Concepcion]. 49 Syjuco v. Abaya~ yiti11g Guing9n8. • • · • •. 50 Belgica.v. Executtve. Secretary, G.R. No. 2105~3, 08 Octo~er 201 :· . 51 Francisco v. House ufll.epresentat,ves, 460 Phil. 830 (200a) [Per,. Carp10-Morales, En Banc]. 52 305 Phil. 686 (i9'.'4) [Per J. Mendoza, En Bene].