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 117 G.R. Nos. 271059, 271347, E-02472 and E-04036 In these cases, the Court acknowledges that the Unprogrammed Appropriations under the 2024 GAA, as well as the SAGFs and theSpeciaI_ .. Road_ Fund under the 2025 GAA, have already fun9ed numerous government programs and projects with far-reaching effects. The Court is mindful that Filipinos have already benefited from these laws and that the difficulties that would be borne by the public far outweigh a rigid insistence on their legal nullity. We note the comment of Justice Lazaro-Javier that the doctrine of operative fact should not be applied indiscriminately, as this "could be read as a blanket judicial clearance of the officers responsible for an unconstitutional act[.]"487 It must only shield "the settled expectations of those who relied on a law before it was struck down." 488 This is not the case for determining the liability of any of those who participated in the unconstitutional acts within Congress. Certainly, the reality that these constitutional and legal issues were raised for the, first time in this case will be taken into consideration. Also, the matter of any violation of our existing doctrines on the post- enactment participation of legislators in the execution of the Budget, as well as any violation of our laws on plunder, anti-graft and corruption, and related acts are also not the issues in this case. We are certain that the proper officials will take note of this Decision and take the observations into consideration should they deem it relevant. With these in mind, the doctrine of operative fact should apply only to programs, activities, and projects that can no longer be undone, provided that the beneficiaries acted in good faith based on the presumed validity of the Unprogrammed Appropriations under the 2024 GAA and the SAGFs and the Special Road Fund under the 2025 GAA. However, this protection does not • •• extend to the authors, proponents, and implementors of the aforementioned laws. These officials remain subject to criminal, civil, and administrative liability unless the proper tribunals explicitly find that they acted in good faith. In sum, the Court holds: 1. The Unprogrammed Appropriations in the Budget are constitutional, subject to the following conditions: a. In no case shall there be lump sums in Unprogrammed Appropriations. ~87 J. Lazaro-Javier, Concurrence and Dissent, p.7. 488 Id.