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. 31 / 36
Conc!JITing and Dissenting Opinion 31 G.R. Nos. 271059, 271347, E-02472 & E-04036 the report of the Bicameral Conference Committee was ratified by the majority of the members ofboth houses of Congress before it was transmitted to th,e President. It is also well to remember that new measures or amendments introduced in the budget by Congress are nevertheless subject to a full or partial veto by the President if the new measures or amendments are not consistent with legal requirements or the administration's accounting policies or economic objectives. In the present case, it should be stressed that the President did not veto the change in the unprogrammed appropriations made by Congress. The President only clarified that by virtue of the authority vested upon him by Article VII, Section 20114 of the Constitution, he may negotiate foreign loan agreements other than those specifically listed by the Congress in Special Provision No. 5, "Support to Foreign-Assisted Projects," Chapter XLIII on Unprogrammed Appropriations of the GAA 2024. More, he added that the release of funds for the san1e purpose shall be subject to the submission of a Special Budget pursuant to Section 35, Chapter 5,, Book VI of the Revised Administrative Code. 115 Special Provision 1 (a) of. Chapter XLIII of Republic Act No. 12314, or the 2026 GAA authorizing Unprogrammed Appropriations on the first condition for the release of funds, namely, excess revenue collection in any one of the identified non-t= revenue sources, is unconstitutional. I agree with the ruling in the ponencia that Special Provision l(a) of Chapter XLIII of Republic Act No. 12314, or the 2026 GAA authorizing Unprogrammed Appropriations on the first condition for the release of funds, namely, excess revenue collection in any one of the identified non-tax revenue sources, is unconstitutional. It violates Article VII, Section 22, which requires , that,the President's proposed budget, the basis of the general appropriations bill, be a budget of expenditures and sources of financing. 114 Const. (1987), art. VII, sec. 20 staes: SECTION 20. The President may contract or guarantee foreign ioans on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines with the prior concurrence of the; Monet,ary Board1 and subject to such ]imitations as may be provided by law. The Monetary 'Board shall, within thirty days from the end of every quarter of the calendar year, submit to the Congress a e,o'rnpletr:f repo1i of its decision on applications for loans to be contracted or guarai---iteed by the Government or government-owned and controUed corporations which would have the effect of increasing the foreign debi, an<l containing other matters as may be provided by law. 115 Part III, A.7., Fiscal Year 2024 President's \Teto ~v-1essag(.\ https:/,'www.dbm.gov.ph/wp- ~ content/uploads/GAA/GAA2024Nolume!/VETO.pdf (