An independent Philippine legal research libraryRead with context. Verify with confidence.
Court decisionSource checked

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

271059/271347/E-02472/E-04036 — Promulgated October 7, 2026 · 2026 · Supreme Court 2026 / Separate opinion

Source checked. The source check identifies the document; it does not verify every transcribed word or its current legal effect. Recovered or scanned text may contain errors. Compare the wording and subsequent history with the linked legal source.

DIGITAL P. 12 / 36
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion 1.2 G.R. Nos. 271059, 271347, E-02472 & E-04036 ... [W]hile the judicial department and this Court are not bound by the acceptance of the President's certification by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, prudent exercise of our powers and respect due our co .. equal branches of government in matters committed to them by the Constitution, caution a stay of the judicial hand. Therefore, the Presidents exercise of the power to issue such certification is one that should be accorded with due deference. As such, the Court must refrain.from intruding into such matter through the exercise of its judicial power in the absence of grave abuse of discretion, considering that the passage of laws is essentially an affair that falls within the purview of the political branches of government.56 (Citations omitted, emphasis supplied) • • • • • • • •• • • • •• • In the present case, President Marcos certified as urgent the enactment of House Bill No: 8980 based on the ~ollowing reasons: In order to address the need to maintain continuous government operations following the end of the current fiscal year (FY), to expedite the funding of various programs, projects, and activities for FY 2024, and to ensure budgetary preparedness that v.ill enable the govermnent to effectively perform its Constitutional mandate. Following the pron0uncements of this Court in Tolentino, Calleja, and Ahas Kida, this Court finds that there exists a necessity for the immediate enactment ofHouse Bill No. 8980 into law. The need to assure continuity in government operations can be considered a sufficient basis for urgency. The timely enactment of the national budget is critical in ensuring that government •operations will be funded. Without an approved budget, government agencies may face delays in fhnding, which can stall essential services and programs. This affects everything from health and education to public safety-and infi:a~tructure projects. Further; a timely budget also allows the government to implement its fiscal policies effectively. It helps in planning. and executing infrastructure projects, social programs, and other programs and projects. Furthermore, delays in passing the budget can signal political instability or inefficiency, potentially detelTing both domestic and foreign investment. Article VI, Section 25( l) of the Constitution provides that "if, by the end of any fiscal year, the Congress shall have failed to pass the general approp1iations hi!ffor the-ensuing fiscal year, the general appropriations law for the preceding fiscal year shall be deemed re-enacted and shall remain in fore~ and effect· until the general. appropriations bill . is passed by the Congress." 56 Atty. Calleja v. Executiv? S1;.:cretary lvi'edialdea; 91 ~-B Phil. L 269-270 (2021) [Per J. Carandang, En Bancj.