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 25 G.R. Nos. 271059, 271347, E-02472 and E-04036 public funds are illegally disbursed or that public money is being deflectedto any improper purpose, or that public funds are wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law." 133 We likewise found that• petitioners, as citizens, have standing to sue because the issues raised therein are of transcendental importance and of overriding significance to society. 134 Here, petitioners Lagman et al., Erice et al., and Pimentel III et al. invoke their standing as legislators. Petitioners Lagman et al. claim that, as members of the House of Representatives, they stand to suffer from the Bicameral Conference Committee's "furtive insertion" of the PHP 449.5 billion in excess of the president's proposal. 135 Petitioners Erice et al. likewise claim that they suffer injury as incumbent legislators due to the abdication of Congi-ess's power of the purse through the enactment of Chapter XLIII ori •• Unprogrammed Appropriations of the 2026 GAA. Indeed, the alleged acts constitute an infringement of their prerogatives as legislators. Petitioners Filipinos for Peace claims that they have a substantial taxpayer interest in challenging the unconstitutional use of public funds through the enactment of the 2025 GAA. 136 Meanwhile, petitioners Erice et al., as taxpayers, similarly assert that they are bound to suffer from the unconstitutional disbursement of public funds through the 2026 GAA.137 Clearly, this standing is properly invoked as the Petitions involve unconstitutional disbursement of billions of public funds, to the detriment of taxpayers. Furthermore, pet1t10ners are also given standing as citizens, as the issues raised are of immense importance and have far-reaching consequences. • The gravity of the issue.s raised cannot be over~tated as they involve the principles of checks and balances embedded in the Constitution, as well as the constitutional design and safeguards on the budgetary process. Third, the question of constitutionality was raised at the earliest • opportunity. In 1Watibag v. Benipayo, 138 "[t]he earliest opportunity to raise a constitutional issue is to raise it in the pleadings before a competent court that can resolve the same, such that, 'if it is not raised in the pleadings, it cannot be considered at the trial, and, if not considered at the trial, it cannot be d considered on appeal."' 139 / 133 Id. at 528. 13~ Id. 135 Rollo (G.R. No. 271059), pp. 9-10. rn, iPetition (G.R. No. E-02472), par. 5.3-5.7; pars. 5.8-5.16. 137 Petition (G.R. No. E-04036), pp. 19-20, 41. "' 429 Phil. 554 (2002) [Per J. Carpio, En Banc]. 139 Id. at 578.