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

. Concurring and Dissenting Opinion 30 . Gr.R. Nos. 271059, 271347, E-02472 & E-04036 which is ultimately within its prer•:.igative of allocating the budget to different agencies and projects. 111 Given the rationale behind the prohibition, Section 25(1), Article VI of the Constitution can only refer to prograrmned general appropriations, and not unprogrammed appropriations which, in concept, presuppose the existence of revenue or income not originally proposed to cover t.'Je existing expenditures in the BESF and which are made dependent on the fulfillment of specified conditions Authority of Bicameral Conference Committee As to the authority of the Bicameral Conference Committee on the Disagreeing Provisions of the House and Senate versions of House Bill No. 8980 to insert and/or amend the items which resulted in the increase in the total amount of unprogrammed appropriations proposed by President, petitioners in G.R. No. 271059 argue that the changes were clandestinely inserted and/or amended by the Bicameral Conference Committee without the prior lmowledge or ponsent of the greater membership of the House of Representatives and tre Senate of the Philippines. I find no con titutional infirmity in the actions of the Bicameral Conference Committ~e. i In Tolentino v. ~'ecretmy of Finance, t 12 this Court upheld the authority of the bicameral confJrence committee to include in its report an e~tirely new . pro".ision that is not t?und in either.the. Hous.e or Sen.ate bill, so long as the amendment is gennane to the subject bill before the committee. We emphasized that the report of the Bicameral Conference Committee is, in any case, subject to approval by both houses of Congress to be a valid act of the legislative department. This Court also ruled that the ratified report of the bicameral conference committel~ is valid even without having gone through three readings since the bill under consideration of the committee was passed after three readings fur the House where it was first filed and considered by the Senate on first reading. Hence, it cannot be said that the members of Congress were not fully informed of the provisions of the bill. 113 As in Tolentino, i.t cannot be said that the Bica..'T1eral Conference Committee on the Disagreeing Provisions of the House and Senate versions of House Bill No. 8980 had no authority to introduce the amendments made, which are, to be sure, germane to the su~ject bill before it. More iITJ.portantly, 111 id. 112 305 Phil. 686 (1994) [Per J. Mando~ En Banc]. !13 Id.