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

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion 29 G.R. Nos. 271059, 271347, E-02472 & E-04036 If the Commissioner will further notice, under paragraph (4) of the same section, there is a provision to the effect that a special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose for which it is intended, and shall be supported by funds actually available as certified by the National Treasurer, or to be raised by a corresponding revenue proposal included therein. So, necessarily, there is already a maximum limit over which Congress cannot anymore go beyond. MR. NATIVIDAD: Paragraph (4) is a different matter, Madam President. This is a new proposal, like a public works bill, which one cannot present without the corresponding certification of availability of funds or the corresponding revenue proposal. But I would just like to clarify because the first response of the Committee is that the Congress may increase or decrease. The distinguished Chairman said Congress may not increase. So, which one is the right answer? MR. DAVIDE: I think the Commissioner may have in mind reincorporating the limitation provided for undc,r the 1935 Constitution, prohibiting specifically the Congress to increase the recommended appropriations made by the President. We can entertain that at the proper time although I would like to repeat that the requirement under the lines 26 and 27 on page 7 - ".a budget of receipts based on existing and proposed revenue measures" - which is actually proposed by the President himself cannot be exceeded by the Congress. MR. NATIVIDAD: As the Gentleman knows, the budget if receipts and proposed revenu.e measures is ambival.ent. There is nothing sure about that because that isju~t a projection of future e~r:,illlgs an\J- wo;, clo not know . exactly if 80 percent vvill be realized or not. So. t.li.is is just a projection of the future earnmgs of the govermnent. MR. DAVIDE: That is exactly the reason why Congress cannot go beyond that because what may be collected of the expected revenues may be only very much less than 100 percent. 109 The prohibition against Congress increasing the President's proposed appropriations in tho: budget was ultimately reinstated in Article VI, Section 25(1) of the. . Constitution. In Sarmiento v.. Treasurer of the Philippines, 110 this Court emphasized that the possil?ility of a big l:}udget deficit is not remote if the Congress were given an unbridled hand in passing upon the appropriations recommended by the President as specified in the budget. Thus, the constitutional prohibition is an assurance .that the government's expected income will be sufficient to cover the operational expenses of its agencies and projects specifiedin the appropriationslaw. This Court nevertheless clarified that,since the objective is to prevent a .budget deficit,. Section 25(1), Article VI of the Constitution should be .read as enjoining the Congress from increasing the total budget for the operati.on .of the government as recommended by the President, but not the individual items of appropriations, 109 Records of the 1986 Co11stit11tionai·-commis~ion 2. July 22, l 986, pp. 107-108. 110 G.R. Nos. 125680 'imd 12631.3, Sept!;:mber4, 2001, Unsigned R;solution, [En Banc].