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 94 G.R. Nos. 271059, 271347, E-02472 and .. E-04036 relating to the coconut and other palm oils industry in all its aspects and the establishment of a research into the commercial and industrial uses of coconut and other oil industry. For that purpose, the Authority shall, from time to time, ascertain how much of the collections of the Coconut Consumers Stabilization Fund and/or the Coconut Industry Development Fund is not required to flnance the, replanting program and other purposes herein authorized and such ascertained surplus shall be utilized by the bank for the investments herein authorized. The surplus created by this particular Section of P.O. No. 1468 eventually became known as the Coconut Industry Investment Fund (CJJF). With the use of the CIIF, UCPB acquired coconut oil mills corporation, 14 holding companies, and San Miguel Corporation shares. In short, Section 9 of P.O. No. 1468 allowed Marcos cronies to grow their wealth - to the detriment of the coconut industry. • • • A law which provides this kind of open-ended provision cannot be considered a law which provides clear legislative parameters. Too much unbridled discretion is given for any surplus or balance that remains unutilized from the CIDF. The provision of P.O. No. 1468 are simply too broad to limit the amount of spending that may be done by the implementing authority. Considering that no statute provides for specific parameters on how the , 'SAGF may be spent, Congress must first provide a • law for the disbursements of the funds, in line with its constitutional authority. The absence of the requisite legislative authority in the disbursement of public funds cannot be remedied by executive fiat. For this reason, Sections 6, 7, 8, and 9 ofE.O. No. 180 are declared void because they are not in conformity with the law. Through these sections, the President went beyond the authority delegated by law in the disbursement of the coconut levy funds. 388 In Pimentel Ill v. Matula (Pimentel Ill),389 this Court clarified that a special fund requires no more than that the fund be collected "for a special purpose[,]" in accordance with Article VI, Section 29(3) of the 1987 Constitution. The special nature of a special fund, as well as the requirements governing its utilization, attaches from the moment it is created by law and does notchange regardless of the law's subsequent implementation.390 A special fund's failure to correspond to a specific SAGF does not negate its nature as a fund reserved for a special purpose: In other word~, the lack <!fa special account in the general fund does not negate the descriptive label that attaches at once to what a.fund devoted for a special purpose is~ a "specialfund" as Article VI, Section 29 (3) of the Constitution describes. The style of management and administration of 3"' Id. at 1059-1060. 189 Pimentel /II v. Matula, G.R. No. 274778, December 3, 2005 [Per J. Lazaro-Javier, En Banc] 3')u Id.