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

Decision 108 G.R. Nos. 271059, 271347, E-02472 and E-04036 Petitioners are mistaken in arguing that such increases wou[d'negate the special character of the Special Road Fund as a SAGF. Republic Act No. 8794, as amended by Republic Act No. 11239, only requires that the monies collected and remitted to the National Treasury as part of the Special Road Fund "be earmarked solely for the construction, upgrading, repair, and rehabilitation of roads, bridges, and road drainage."457 The law does not prohibit supplementing the Special Road Fund with funds from other sources that do not violate the parameters for the Special Road Fund's disposition. As held in Pimentel JIJ:458 It is the legislative intent and purpose of the tax, not the technical or accounting management of the funds, that controls. Improper handling or failure to segregate funds may be considered administrative discretion or lapses, but they do not negate the constitutional classification ofthefund as "special fund." The designation of the funds as a special fund is conferred by the Constitution, but the handling of the fund and its segregation from the general fund is merely an administrative matter that will neither affect nor alter its character.459 (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied) Thus, there is no merit to petitioners' contention that supplementing the Special Road Fund with funds from other general sources of funding would violate the requirements of Republic Act No. 8794. The special character of the Special Road Fund would be violated only if it were diverted from its statutory purpose. Here, the funds collected under Republic Act No. 8794, as amended, were remitted to and remained in SAGF for use toward their intended purpose of road, bridge, and drainage maintenance. However, it is apparent from the inclusion of the Special Road Fund among the line items in the budget of the DPWH that both the Executive and the Legislative branches have seemingly classified the Special Road Fund as "Use of Income in the General Fund," contrary to its statutory classification .. as a "Special Account in the General Fund." . According to a .report .published by. House of Representatives' Congressional Policy and Budget Research Department, Republic Act No. 11239 supposedly implemented this reclassification when its implerrienting • rules and regulations "mandated [the Special Road Fund's] inclusion in the [General Appropriations Act]."460 In other cases, earmarked funds initially treated as SAGFs have been reclassified as UI following statutory amendments. 457 lmplementina Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 11239(2019), sec. 3. 458 Pimentel III: Matula, G.R. No. 274778, December 3, 2005 [Per J. Lazaro-Javier, En Banc]. 459 Id. 460 Anthony Arvin V. Salazar, Ways Forward in Managing Earmarked Revenues in the Philippines: Trends, Issues, and Policy Options, House of Representatives - Congressional Policy and Budget Research Department, Issue No. 4 (2026), pp. 4-5.