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 55 G.R. Nos. 271059, 271347, E-02472 and E-04036 conternplated for unpr6g!'ammed appropriations.· These financial conditions do not preserve fiscal discipline and the coherence of the fiscal program set in the NEP/BESF, as contemplated in the Constitutional mandate under Article VII, Section 22.258 It is a repudiation of the Court's interpretation in Araullo, which is violative of the fundamental principle of separation power. Endencia v. David259 held that Congress may not modify or override the Court's interpretation of the law or any portion of the Constitution without being . violative of the principle of separation of powers: •• Under our system of constitutional government, the Legislative department is assigned the power to make and enact laws. The Executive department is charged with the execution or carrying out of the provisions of said laws. But the interpretation and application of said laws belong exclusively to the Judicial department. And this authority to interpret and . apply the laws extends to the Constitution. Before the courts can determine whether a law is constitutional or not, it will have to interpret and ascertain the meaning not only of said law, but also of the pertinent portion of the Constitution in order to decide whether there is a conflict between the two, because ifthere is, then the law will have to give way and has to be declared • invalid and unconstitutional. If the Legislature may declare what a law means, or what a specific portion qfthe Constitution means, especially after the courts have in actual • case ascertain its meaning by interpretation and applied it in a decision, !his would surely cause confusion and instability in judicial processes and court decisions. Under such a system, a final court determination of a case based on ajudicial interpretation of the law or of the Constitution may be undermined or even annulled by a subsequent and different interpretation of the law or of the Constitution by the Legislative department. That would be neither wise nor desirable, besides being clearly violative qf the .fimdamental principles of our constitutional .system of government, particularly those governing the separation of powers. 260 (Emphasis supplied) Hence, Special Provision l(a) and (b), under Chapter XLIII, Unprogrammed Appropriations in the 2026 GAA violates Article VII, Section 22 of the Constitution. On the third fiscal trigger-approved loans for F APs-the Court hoips that in order to fully comply with the Article VII, Section 22 requirement that a budget must include sources of financing, FAPs which are pending negotiations, with the amounts of the foreign loan and the Government of the Philippines counterpart, should be clearly and fully disclosed in the NEP or . . / BESF. /{ 258 Amicus Curhre Atty. Florencio "'Butch" Abad's Undated Memorandum, pp. 10-12. 259 93 Phil. 696 (I 953) (Per J. Montemayor, En Banc]. 265 id at 700~702.