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 I 16 G.R. Nos. 271059, 271347, E-02472 and E-04036 In Araullo v. Aquino,483 the Court explained the doctrine of operative· fact as one rooted in justice and equity. It provides for the prospective application of the Court's decision when the consequences are too significant to undo: The doctrine of operative fact recognizes the existence of the law or executive act prior to the determination of its unconstitutionality as an operative fact that produced consequences that cannot always be erased, ignored or disregarded. In short, it nullifies the void law or executive act but sustains its effects. It provides an exception to the general rule that a void or unconstitutional law produces no effect. But its use must be subjected to great scrutiny and circumspection, and it cannot be invoked to validate an unconstitutional law or executive act, but is resorted to only as a matter of equity and fair play. It applies only to cases where extraordinary , .circumstances exist, and only when the extraordinerry circumstances have • met the stringent conditions that will permit its application 484 (Citations omitted) The Court in Araullo485 found the doctrine of operative fact applicable to the adoption and implementation of the Executive Department's DAP. The Comiheld: As already mentioned, the implementation of the DAP resulted into the use of savings pooled by the Executive to finance the P APs that were not covered in the GAA, or that did not have proper appropriation covers, as well as to augment items pertaining to other departments of the Government in clear violation of the Constitution. To declare the implementation of the DAP unconstitutional without recognizing that its prior implementation constituted an operative fact that produced consequences in the real as well as juristic worlds of the Governmentpnd the Nation is to be impractical and unfair. Unless the doctrine is held to apply, the Executive as the disburser and the offices under it and elsewhere •as the recipients could be required to undo everything that they had implemented in good faith under the DAP. That scenario would be enormously burdensome for the Government. Equity alleviates such burden. The other side of the coin is that it has been adequately shown as to be beyond debate that the implementation of the DAP yielded undeniably positive results that enhanced the economic welfare of the country. To count the positive results may be impossible, but the visible ones, like public infi-astructure, could easily include roads, bridges, homes.for the homeless, h~spitals, classrooms and the like. Not to apply the doctrine ol operative fact to the DAP could literally cause the physical undoing of such worthy ·results by destruction, and would result in most undesirable wastefulness. 486 (Emphasis supplied) 483 737 Phil. 457 (2014) [Per J. Bersamin, En Banc]. '484 Id; at 620-62 I. • • • , 485 719PhiL 137, 157(2013)[PerJ.Carpio,EnBanc]. 486 Id. at 624-625.