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

Concurring and Dissenti.ng Opinion 32 G.R. Nos. 271059, 271347, E-02472 & E-04036 While unprogrammed appropriations are not unconstitutional per se, their release must remain consistent with the constitutional framework articulated in Araullo v. Aquino.116 InAraullo v. Aquino, 117 this Court declared that considering the purpose for which unprogrammed appropriations were incorporated in the GAA as standby appropriations to support additional expenditures for certain priority PAPs, unprogrammed appropriations must be released only when revenue • collettions exceed the total original revenue targets. In 'that case, we ruled that sourcing the Development Acceleration Program from unprogrammed appropriations, despite not being able to reach an excess of the total original revenue targets identified in t½.e BESF, was invalid. It was emphasized: The revenue targets stated in the BESF were intended to address the flli,ding requirelllents of the proposed programmed appropriations. In contrast, the unprogrammed funds, as standby appropriations, were to be zeleased only when there were revenues in excess of what the programmed appropriations required. As such, the revenue targets should be considered as a whole, not individually; otherwise, we would be dealing with artificial revenue surpluses. The requirement that ·revenue collections must exceed revenue target should be understood to mean that the revenue collections must exceed the total of the revenue targets stated in the BESF. Moreover, to release the unprogrammed .funds simply because there was an excess revenue as to one source of revenue would be an unsound fiscal management measure because it would disregard the budget plan and foster budget deficits, m contravention of the Government's surplus budget po!icy.118 , • • • \\,'hile Araullo dealt with the provisions on unprogrammed appropriations in the 2011, 2012, and 2013 GAAs, the principle remains the same. Unproguarnmed appropriations, by its very nature, presuppose the existence of ex~ess revenues in relation to tl1e total revenue targets. Justifying the release ofi unprogrammed appropriations based on artificial revenue surpluses will plur its distinction from programmed appropriations, in utter disregard of- th[e budget plan. Too, it would also foster budget deficits, in violation of_t.h.ei policy on surplus budget. In fact, during the oral arguments of this case, Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Cag4ioa elicited from DBM. Assistant Secretary, Atty. Andrea Celene M.• Magtalas, that-the ·reiease of unprogrammed appropriations under Special Provisilon l(a) of Chapter. XLIII of Republic Act No. 12314 or the . 2026 GAA can affec\ the budget ddicit, partic!.f!arly when .unprogrammed • appropriations are triggered even before programmed appropriations are fully funded. In these cases, the.. government's tendency is to borrow money to 116 737 Phil. 457, s31 (2014) !Per J. B~rsamin~ En Banc]. 11: Id liS id. • I