271059/271347/E-02472/E-04036 Concurring and Dissenting Opinion: Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh — Official PDF

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion 18 G.R. Nos. 271347, 278353, E-02472 & E-04036 Semantically, Article VI; Section 22 of the Constitution appears to pe.rtain only to the BESF when it directs the President to submit a "budget of expenditures and sources of financing, including receipts from existing and proposed revenue measures." However, the submission of the NEP also has textual basis in the Constitution. Article VI, Section 25(1) of the Constitution refers to "appropriations recommended by the President. .. as specified in the budget." While the term appropriation has been used interchangeably with budget, an "appropriation," as earlier discussed, has a technical meaning. It requires specificity, i.e. the concurrence ofa specific purpose and a specific amount. The rationale behind this requirement is to ensure transparency and accountability in the disbursement of every peso. UAs are valid legislative authorizations. Although excluded from the . financed fiscal prograin, they. are still within, the contemplation of an "appropriation" law as they represent legislative authorization to spend public funds once certain fiscal conditions are fulfilled. I agree with the ponencia that the existence ofiUAs per se in the GAA is not unconstitutional. After all, the Constitution iempowers Congress to detennine the form, content, and manner of the preparation of the budget, i.e., that such matters be prescribed by law. Under ideal conditions, UAs serve a distinct practical purpose in the GAA. They pre-authorize expenditures by appropriating, in advance, any windfall revenues which would otherwise be unusable until the next budget cycle even when there is justifiable public need. As a feature and content of the appropriation law, however, UAs must exist within the constitutional budget framework. . . First, UAs must. comply with the s;ime stanqard qf specificity applicable to programmed appropriations. It cannot be presented as a lu_mp sum appropriation cove1ing multiple purposes. As establishedin Belgica: [A ]n item of approp1iation must be an item characterized by singular correspondence - meaning an allocation of a specified singular amount for a specified singular purpose, otherwise known as a "line-item." This treatment not only allows the item to be consistent 'with its definition as a "specific appropriation of money" but also ensures tI1at the President may discernibly veto the same. 50 so Belgica v. Hon. Exec. Sec. Ochoa, Jr., 721 Phil. 416, 551-552 (2013) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, En Banc].