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 115 G.R. Nos. 271059, 271347, E-02472 and E-04036 VIII The doctrine of operative fact applies. Petitioners Erice and De Lima contend that the doctrine of operative fact applies to the 2024 and 2025 Budgets, considering that both budgets have already been terminated and that "their actual existence prior to the resolution·· ,. of this case, is an operative fact and has consequences which cannot justly be ignored."480 However, with respect to the 2026 GAA, petitioners assert that there is no showing that funds have been released to finance unprogrammed appropriations. They contend that, unless restrained, respondents still have time before the end of the fiscal year "to release funds for unprogrammed appropriations, and obligate expenses under an unconstitutional framework."481 In the interest of justice and equity, this Court applies the doctrine of operative fact to recognize and give legal effect to all acts performed prior to the declaration of unconstitutionality of the increases in the Unprogrammed Appropriations of the 2024 GAA, the allotted amounts of SAGFs under the Special Provisions of the departments and agencies, and the Special Road Fund under in Republic Act No. 12116, or the 2025 GAA. As a general rule, a void law cannot be the source of legal rights or duties: The rule for the applicability of laws and administrative acts can be found in Article 7 of the Civil Code, which states: Article 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary. When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern. Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution. However, an exception to this rule is the doctrine of operative fact· which recognizes that "a judicial declaration of invalidity may not necessarily obliterate all the effects and consequences of a void act prior to such declaration."482 The doctrine addresses the period prior to a law's nullification, during which parties reasonably and' in good faith relied on its prov1s1ons. "' Memorandum for Petitioners Edgar R. Erice and Leila M. De Lima (G.R. No. E-04036), p.73. 481 Id. at 73-74. m Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Roque Corporation, 719 Phil. 137, I 57 (2013) [Per J. Carpfo, En Banc].