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 76 G.R. Nos. 271059, 271347, E-02472.m\.di E-04036' i by the poor to the extent that the Philippine Development Plan seeks to address income, health, education and other forms of poverty. VI Petitioners Lagman and Pimentel contend that the Constitutional prohibition on Congress from increasing the appropriations recommended J:?y the president in the NEP covers both programmed appropriations, which have. available funding sources, and unprogrammed appropriations, which have' only contingent funding sources limited to (a) release of new loan procee4s for foreign-assisted projects; (b) revenue collections from new tax laws; a~d ( c) increase in non-tax revenue collections over target.331 Article VI, Section 25(1) of the Constitution uses the word "appropriation" without providing I a .. distinction among its kinds.332 "Unprogrammed appropriations" fall under the definition of appropriations333 and are essential components of the total national expenditures once funded and released for implementation.334 •' Respondents counter that Congress validly exercised its power of the purse when it modified the proposed appropriations under the 2024, 2025 arid 2026 General Appropriations Bill in the course of the congression~l deliberations.335 Respondents cite Tolentino v. Secretary ofFinance,336 whi¢h recognized that the Senate's power to propose or concur with amendments to a bill implies its authority to produce a bill distinct from that proposed by the House of Representatives,337 subject to the constitutional limitation that !itI must not increase the appropriation recommended by the president.3!38 Tolentino further recognized that a Bicameral Conference Committee c:µi propose new provisions in a bill for as long as it remains gennane to t~e subject.339 At any rate, the Bicameral Conference Committee report !is •• required to be ratified by both Houses ofCongress.340 Respondents add that the Constitution recognizes the active and independent role of Congress in budget legislation, subject to the limitation against increasing the president's proposed appropriations.341 This,limitatic!m merely provides arestraint on Congress's exercise of budgetary powers, npt as a requirement for ministerial approval of the Executive's proposal.342 Thus, Congress may scrutinize and revise budgetary proposals in the exercise of jts power of appropriation.343 • 3·" Petition (G.R. No. 271059), pp. 17-18. "' Petition (G.R. No. 271347), pp. 18, 20. ''' Petition (G.R. No. 271347), p. 19. 334 Petition (G.R. No. 271059), p.19. 335 OSG Memorandum, p. 27. 336 305 Phil. 686 (1994) [Per J. Mendoza, En Banc]. 337 OSG Memorandum, p. 27. :Ds Id. at 29. :>.>9 Id at 28. 340 Id. at 29. 341 Id. at 30. 342 /d.at31. 343 Id. at 32.