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

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion 2 G.R. Nos. 271059, 271347, E-02472 & E-04036 CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION LOPEZ, J., J.: I concur with the ponencia insofar as it declares that unprogrammed appropriations are not unconstitutional per se, and that Special Provision l(a) of Chapter XLIII of Republic Act No. 12314, or the 2026 General Appropriations Act (GAA) is unconstitutional for permitting the release of unprogrammed appropriations upon the occurrence of excess revenue collections from any of the identified non-tax revenue sources, contrary to Article VII, Section 22 of the Constitution and this Court's controlling pronouncement in Araullo v. Aquino JIJ. 1 However, I express a different view with regard to the prohibition against Congress to increase the appropriations recommended by the President in the budget, as mandated by Article VI, Section 25(1 ). I. The Court takes cognizance of the case under its expanded judidal power In seeking resort to this Court, petitioners availed of the remedies of certiorari and prohibition. When the constitutionality of a law or its provisions is brought before this Court, the question on the propriety of the procedural vehicle used by the petitioner is almost invariably the initiai point of consideration. Traditionally, the writs of certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court have been used by superior courts "to keep lower courts within the confines of their granted jurisdictions," and thereby ensure orderliness in the lower courts' rulings.2 Thus, under Rule 65, Sections 13 and 24 of the Rules -of Court, petitions for certiorari and prohibition are proper to 737 Phil. 457 (2014) [Per J. Bersamin, En Banc]. 2 Association ofMedical Clinics/or Overseas Workers, Inc. (AMCOW) v. GCC Approved Medical Centers Association, Inc., 802 Phil. I 16, 136 (2016) [Per J. Brion, En Banc]. RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, secs. i and 2 state: SECTION I. Petition for Ceriiorari. - When any tribunal, &oard:or offi"cer exercising judicial or quasi- judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisJiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or exce.ss of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course oflaw~ a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annuiling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and grar1ting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require, The petition sI:iaII be accompanied by ·a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleiid~ngs and documents rdevant mid pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46; 4 SECTION 2. Petition for Prohibition. - Whentheproceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether exercisingju~icial, quasi-judicial-or ministerial functions, are without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with _gra,ve abuse of discretfon amounting to tack or excess of jurisdiction,-and there is no appeal or any other plain~ speedy, a11.<l-adequate remedy in the ordinary course oflaw, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying thatjudgment be rendered cornmanding the respondent to desist from further proceedings in the ~