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

• Concurring and Dissenting Opinion 27. (LR. Nos. 271059, 271347, E-02472 & E-04036 Given the nature and contents of the budget submitted by the President to Congress, the appropriations referred to in Article VI, Section 25(1) of the Constitution, which Congress cannot increase, can only refer to the proposed expenditures supported by the corresponding sources or definite funding. It should be clarified that the term appropriations is used loosely in Article VI, Section 25(1) of the Constitution, as it is legally defined as "an authorization made by law or other legislative enactment, directing payment out of government funds m1der specified conditions or for specified purposes." 105 Thus, without legislative authorization, the proposed amounts of the President in the budget are not considered appropriations yet in the strict sense. In any event, as explained above, the proposed expenditures in the BESF with correspondil;i.g revenue sources ai;e translated into the NEP as programmed general appropriations, or those allocated for the operating expenses of the national government and the fu..'1.ding for the programs, projects, and activities of the implementing agencies, as well as those allocated for special purpose funds. To emphasize, the total amount of the programmed general appropriations is supported by at least an equivalent source of revenue or receipts for the government during the fiscal year. In this case, the President proposed a total of PHP 4.019 trillion in progranimed general appropri;itions for 2024, while projected revenue collection from tax and non-tax sources, as well as privatization, is PHP 4.27 trillion. From the foregoing,· it is evident that the prohibition under Section 25(1), Article VI of the Constitution does not cover automatic appropriations and unprogramrrted appropriations, both of which are technically not part of the President's proposed budget. Automatic appropriations are "appropriations programmed annuaily o"r for some other period prescribed by law, by virtue ofoutstanding legislation." 106 They are one-time authorizations • to provide funds for a specified purpos;, the a:mou,it of which are automatically available and set aside as needed. While mentioned in the NEP, automatic appropriations do not need to be included in the legislation of annual appropriations. 107 On the other hand, unprogrammed appropriations are tho.se which provide standby authority to incur additional agency obligations for priority programs or projects when additional revenue is realized. In other words, unprogrammed appropriations do not have corresponding sources of funding yet and are not .readily implementable. Given its nature, un.programmed appropriations are not included in the BESF and are only proposed in the NEP. .: During the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission on th.e then proposal to reinstate the subject constitutional prohibition which was present in the 1935 Constimtion,1°8 bui was omitted in the 1972 Constitution, it was l05 Jc(.. . . . , • 106 Bertiz llI v. Medialdea, G.R. No. 235310, (!l October7022 107 https'.//www .ombuclsman.gov.ph/UNDP4/wp-content/up1oads/2012/12/Chap 1__FAQ. pdf 108 CON5T. art .• Vt sec. 9(1) provides: