An independent Philippine legal research libraryRead with context. Verify with confidence.
Court decisionSource checked

271059/271347/E-02472/E-04036 Representative Edcel C. Lagman, substituted by Albay First District Representative Krisel B. Lagman, et al. Vs. The Congress of the Philippines, et al./Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III and Pantaleo “Bebot” Alvarez Vs. Lucas P. Bersamin, in his capacity as executive secretary, and Amenah F. Pangandaman, in her capacity as secretary of the Department of Budget and Management/Filipinos for Peace, Justice and Progress Movement, Inc. (FPJPM), represented by its president and chairperson, Joseph F. Cadsawan, and Gloria T. Puzon, chapter Officer Vs. The House of Representatives, et al./Edgar R. Erice and Leila De Lima Vs. The Senate of the Philippines, et al. — Official PDF

271059/271347/E-02472/E-04036 — Promulgated October 7, 2026 · 2026 · Supreme Court 2026 / Decision or signed resolution

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. 106 / 121
Decision 106 G.R. Nos. 271059, 271347, E-02472 and E-04036 SECTION 25. Prohibition Against Enactment ofAdditional Special Provisions. - The Congress shall not add special provisions in the budget earmarking the use of appropriations for specific programs or activities nor shall it increase the amounts specified in special provisions, beyond those proposed by the President. (Emphasis supplied) The amounts to be released from the SAGFs and 'the mechanics for their disbursement are provided in the Special Provisions of programmed appropriations for the relevant government departments and agencies., Hence, the increases in the SAGFs violate Book VI, Chapter 4, Section 25 of the Administrative Code. As applied to the increase of funds earmarked for the Special Road User's Fund (G.R. No. E-02472): To resolve the alleged unconstitutionality of the increase in the amount budgeted for the DPWH's Special Road Fund, the increase must be examined in light of the requirements of the special law creating the special fund. Republic Act No. 8794 imposed the Motor Vehicle Usefs Charge, which Republic Act No. 11239 amended to provide the manner of its disppsition: Section l. Section 7 of Republic Act No. 8794 is hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec. 7. Disposition of Monies Collected.- All monies collected under this Act shall be remitted to the National Treasury under a special account in the General Fund to be earmarked solely for the construction, upgrading, repair, and rehabilitation of road,, bridges, and road drainage to be included in the annual General Appropriations Act. "452 (Emphasis supplied) The implementing rules and regulations of Republic Act No. 11239 further constituted the Special Road Fund as a Special Account in the General Fund from which the collected amounts may be disbursed: SECTION 3. Disposition of Monies Collected. - All monies collected by virtue·ofRA 8794 and deposited under the four (4)special trust • accounts in the National Treasury, namely: (1) Special Road Support Fund, (2) Special Local Road Fund, (3) Special Road Safety Fund, and (4) Special Vehicle Pollution Control Fund, shall be automatically credited to a Special Account in the General Fund constituted as the Special Road Fund, and shall be earmarked solely for the construction, upgrading, repair and rehabilitation of road,, bridges and road drainage to be included in the annual General Appropriations Act. ·"' Republic Act No. I 1239 (20 I 9), sec. I, amending Republic Act No. 8794 (2000), sec. 7.