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.
If your browser cannot display the PDF, use Download original. Original access follows the same document permissions.