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 54 G.R. Nos. 271059, 271347, E-02472 and. E-04036 unprogrammed funds were included in the GAAs to provide ready cover so as not to delay the implementation of the P APs should new or additional revenue sources be realized during the year. Given the tenor of the certifications, the unprogrammed funds were thus not yet supported by the corresponding resources. The revenue targets stated in the BESF were intended to address the funding requirements of the proposed programmed appropriations. In contrast, the unprogrammed funds, as standby appropriations, were to be released only when there were revenues in excess of what the programmed appropriations required. As such,, the revenue targets should be considered as a whole, not individually; otherwise, we would be dealing with artificial revenue surpluses. The •requirement that revenue collections must exceed revenue target should be understood to mean that the revenue collections must exceed the total of the revenue targets stated in the BESF. Moreover, to release the unprogrammed funds simply because there was an excess revenue as to one source of revenue would be an unsound fiscal management measure because it would disregard the budget plan and foster budget deficits, in contravention of the Government's surplus budget policy. 255 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted) In their motion for reconsideration in Araullo, respondents insisted that "each source of revenue in the budget proposal must exceed the respective target to authorize release of unprogrammed funds."256 Rejecting this contention, the Court maintained that "aggregate revenue collection must. first exceed aggregate revenue target as a pre-requisite to the use ;of unprogrammed funds." 257 Araullo emphasized that the activation of unprogrammed appr~priations was not meant to occur just m~rely when individual revenue sources exceed their targets or when new revenue sources become available. In other words, unprogrammed appropriations operate only where there is genuine improvement in fiscal capacity after the enactment of the budget. A holistic consideration of the revenue targets is necessary to assure the deficit neutrality of the unprogrammed appropriations and preserve fiscal discipline.• Notably, after the Court's July I, 2014 Decision in Arau/lo, Congress enacted the 2015 GAA, amending the conditions for the use ofunprogramm:ed appropriations. The Special Provision specifically set the trigger condition to any excess or new revenue collections, regardless if the revenue targets as a whole have been met. This trigger condition has remained basically the same until the 2026 GAA, except for the 2024 GAA with the addition of the GOCC funds as well as excess tax revenue collections. • .The Court maintains that pegging the fiscal triggers to any excess. or new revenue collections does not assure the "deficit neutrality" originally 255 Arau/lo v. Aquino III, 737 Phil. 457, 612----015 (2014) [Per J. Bersamin, En Banc]. '"' Arau/lo v. Aquino !f!, 752 Phil. 716 (2015) [Per J. Bersamin, En Banc]. 257 /d. at 773. (Emphasis supplied)