They also decried the "selective" quest for justice. But the proposed law has been met by criticism. Militant groups will also be gathering at the Mendiola Bridge in Manila on Monday before joining other groups at Luneta Park. Bea Cupin. What abolition? Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court compellingly provides the requirements for that purpose, viz:. The sole office of the writ of certiorari is the correction of errors of jurisdiction, which includes the commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
In this regard, mere abuse of discretion is not enough to warrant the issuance of the writ. The abuse of discretion must be grave, which means either that the judicial or quasi-judicial power was exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, or that the respondent judge, tribunal or board evaded a positive duty, or virtually refused to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law, such as when such judge, tribunal or board exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers acted in a capricious or whimsical manner as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
Although similar to prohibition in that it will lie for want or excess of jurisdiction, certiorari is to be distinguished from prohibition by the fact that it is a corrective remedy used for the re-examination of some action of an inferior tribunal, and is directed to the cause or proceeding in the lower court and not to the court itself, while prohibition is a preventative remedy issuing to restrain future action, and is directed to the court itself. Defensor: A petition for prohibition is also not the proper remedy to assail an IRR issued in the exercise of a quasi-legislative function.
Prohibition lies against judicial or ministerial functions, but not against legislative or quasi-legislative functions. Generally, the purpose of a writ of prohibition is to keep a lower court within the limits of its jurisdiction in order to maintain the administration of justice in orderly channels.
Prohibition is the proper remedy to afford relief against usurpation of jurisdiction or power by an inferior court, or when, in the exercise of jurisdiction in handling matters clearly within its cognizance the inferior court transgresses the bounds prescribed to it by the law, or where there is no adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of law by which such relief can be obtained.
With respect to the Court, however, the remedies of certiorari and prohibition are necessarily broader in scope and reach, and the writ of certiorari or prohibition may be issued to correct errors of jurisdiction committed not only by a tribunal, corporation, board or officer exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions but also to set right, undo and restrain any act of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by any branch or instrumentality of the Government, even if the latter does not exercise judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions.
This application is expressly authorized by the text of the second paragraph of Section 1, supra. Necessarily, in discharging its duty under Section 1, supra, to set right and undo any act of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by any branch or instrumentality of the Government, the Court is not at all precluded from making the inquiry provided the challenge was properly brought by interested or affected parties.
The Court has been thereby entrusted expressly or by necessary implication with both the duty and the obligation of determining, in appropriate cases, the validity of any assailed legislative or executive action. This entrustment is consistent with the republican system of checks and balances. Following our recent dispositions concerning the congressional pork barrel, the Court has become more alert to discharge its constitutional duty.
The requisites for the exercise of the power of judicial review are the following, namely: 1 there must bean actual case or justiciable controversy before the Court; 2 the question before the Court must be ripe for adjudication; 3 the person challenging the act must be a proper party; and 4 the issue of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity and must be the very litis mota of the case.
The first requisite demands that there be an actual case calling for the exercise of judicial power by the Court. Executive Secretary Ochoa: In other words, "[t]here must be a contrariety of legal rights that can be interpreted and enforced on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence. It is a prerequisite that something had then been accomplished or performed by either branch before a court may come into the picture, and the petitioner must allege the existence of an immediate or threatened injury to itself as a result of the challenged action.
An actual and justiciable controversy exists in these consolidated cases. The incompatibility of the perspectives of the parties on the constitutionality of the DAP and its relevant issuances satisfy the requirement for a conflict between legal rights.
The issues being raised herein meet the requisite ripeness considering that the challenged executive acts were already being implemented by the DBM, and there are averments by the petitioners that such implementation was repugnant to the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Moreover, the implementation of the DAP entailed the allocation and expenditure of huge sums of public funds. The fact that public funds have been allocated, disbursed or utilized by reason or on account of such challenged executive acts gave rise, therefore, to an actual controversy that is ripe for adjudication by the Court.
It is true that Sec. DAP as a program, no longer exists, thereby mooting these present cases brought to challenge its constitutionality. Any constitutional challenge should no longer be at the level of the program, which is now extinct, but at the level of its prior applications or the specific disbursements under the now defunct policy. We challenge the petitioners to pick and choose which among the DAP projects they wish to nullify, the full details we will have provided by February 5.
We urge this Court to be cautious in limiting the constitutional authority of the President and the Legislature to respond to the dynamic needs of the country and the evolving demands of governance, lest we end up straight jacketing our elected representatives in ways not consistent with our constitutional structure and democratic principles.
A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. The Court cannot agree that the termination of the DAP as a program was a supervening event that effectively mooted these consolidated cases.
Verily, the Court had in the past exercised its power of judicial review despite the cases being rendered moot and academic by supervening events, like: 1 when there was a grave violation of the Constitution; 2 when the case involved a situation of exceptional character and was of paramount public interest; 3 when the constitutional issue raised required the formulation of controlling principles to guide the Bench, the Bar and the public; and 4 when the case was capable of repetition yet evading review.
Hence, the Court should not abstain from exercising its power of judicial review. Legal standing, as a requisite for the exercise of judicial review, refers to "a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question. Judicial and Bar Council, 44 where the Court said:. In public or constitutional litigations, the Court is often burdened with the determination of the locus standi of the petitioners due to the ever-present need to regulate the invocation of the intervention of the Court to correct any official action or policy in order to avoid obstructing the efficient functioning of public officials and offices involved in public service.
It is required, therefore, that the petitioner must have a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy, for, as indicated in Agan, Jr. Philippine International Air Terminals Co. The question on legal standing is whether such parties have "alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.
He must be able to show, not only that the law or any government act is invalid, but also that he sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers thereby in some indefinite way. It must appear that the person complaining has been or is about to be denied some right or privilege to which he is lawfully entitled or that he is about to be subjected to some burdens or penalties by reason of the statute or act complained of.
It is true that as early as in , in People v. Vera, the Court adopted the direct injury test for determining whether a petitioner in a public action had locus standi. There, the Court held that the person who would assail the validity of a statute must have "a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a result. Felix, and Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works. Yet, the Court has also held that the requirement of locus standi, being a mere procedural technicality, can be waived by the Court in the exercise of its discretion.
For instance, in , in Araneta v. Dinglasan, the Court liberalized the approach when the cases had "transcendental importance. In the decision in Aquino v.
Commission on Elections, this Court decided to resolve the issues raised by the petition due to their "far reaching implications," even if the petitioner had no personality to file the suit. The liberal approach of Aquino v. Commission on Elections has been adopted in several notable cases, permitting ordinary citizens, legislators, and civic organizations to bring their suits involving the constitutionality or validity of laws, regulations, and rulings.
However, the assertion of a public right as a predicate for challenging a supposedly illegal or unconstitutional executive or legislative action rests on the theory that the petitioner represents the public in general. Although such petitioner may not be as adversely affected by the action complained against as are others, it is enough that he sufficiently demonstrates in his petition that he is entitled to protection or relief from the Court in the vindication of a public right.
Quite often, as here, the petitioner in a public action sues as a citizen or taxpayer to gain locus standi. That is not surprising, for even if the issue may appear to concern only the public in general, such capacities nonetheless equip the petitioner with adequate interest to sue.
In David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, the Court aptly explains why:. Case law in most jurisdiction snow allows both "citizen" and "taxpayer" standing in public actions. The distinction was first laid down in Beauchamp v.
In the former, the plaintiff is affected by the expenditure of public funds, while in the latter, he is but the mere instrument of the public concern. Collins: "In matter of mere public right, however…the people are the real parties…It is at least the right, if not the duty, of every citizen to interfere and see that a public offence be properly pursued and punished, and that a public grievance be remedied.
Jordan held that "the right of a citizen and a taxpayer to maintain an action in courts to restrain the unlawful use of public funds to his injury cannot be denied. The Court has cogently observed in Agan, Jr. The IBP, the petitioner in G. Under their respective circumstances, each of the petitioners has established sufficient interest in the outcome of the controversy as to confer locus standi on each of them. In addition, considering that the issues center on the extent of the power of the Chief Executive to disburse and allocate public funds, whether appropriated by Congress or not, these cases pose issues that are of transcendental importance to the entire Nation, the petitioners included.
An understanding of the Budget System of the Philippines will aid the Court in properly appreciating and justly resolving the substantive issues. The term "budget" originated from the Middle English word bouget that had derived from the Latin word bulga which means bag or purse.
The term was given a different meaning under Republic Act No. The concept of budgeting has not been the product of recent economies. In reality, financing public goals and activities was an idea that existed from the creation of the State. At the beginning, enormous public expenditures were spent for war activities, preservation of peace and order, security, administration of justice, religion, and supply of limited goods and services.
The Philippine Budget System has been greatly influenced by western public financial institutions. At any rate, the Philippine Budget System is presently guided by two principal objectives that are vital to the development of a progressive democratic government, namely: 1 to carry on all government activities under a comprehensive fiscal plan developed, authorized and executed in accordance with the Constitution, prevailing statutes and the principles of sound public management; and 2 to provide for the periodic review and disclosure of the budgetary status of the Government in such detail so that persons entrusted by law with the responsibility as well as the enlightened citizenry can determine the adequacy of the budget actions taken, authorized or proposed, as well as the true financial position of the Government.
The budget process in the Philippines evolved from the early years of the American Regime up to the passage of the Jones Law in A Budget Office was created within the Department of Finance by the Jones Law to discharge the budgeting function, and was given the responsibility to assist in the preparation of an executive budget for submission to the Philippine Legislature.
As early as under the Constitution, a budget policy and a budget procedure were established, and subsequently strengthened through the enactment of laws and executive acts. CA No. The Constitution and various presidential decrees directed a series of budgetary reforms that culminated in the enactment of PD No.
The latter decree converted the Budget Commission into the Ministry of Budget, and gave its head the rank of a Cabinet member. Four phases comprise the Philippine budget process, specifically: 1 Budget Preparation; 2 Budget Legislation; 3 Budget Execution; and 4 Accountability. Each phase is distinctly separate from the others but they overlap in the implementation of the budget during the budget year. The Budget Call contains budget parameters earlier set by the Development Budget Coordination Committee DBCC as well as policy guidelines and procedures to aid government agencies in the preparation and submission of their budget proposals.
The Budget Call is of two kinds, namely: 1 a National Budget Call, which is addressed to all agencies, including state universities and colleges; and 2 a Corporate Budget Call, which is addressed to all government-owned and -controlled corporations GOCCs and government financial institutions GFIs.
To boost citizen participation, the current administration has tasked the various departments and agencies to partner with civil society organizations and other citizen-stakeholders in the preparation of the Agency Budget Proposals, which proposals are then presented before a technical panel of the DBM in scheduled budget hearings wherein the various departments and agencies are given the opportunity to defend their budget proposals.
The Staffing Summary provides the staffing complement of each department and agency, including the number of positions and amounts allocated.
Public or government expenditures are generally classified into two categories, specifically: 1 capital expenditures or outlays; and 2 current operating expenditures.
Capital expenditures are the expenses whose usefulness lasts for more than one year, and which add to the assets of the Government, including investments in the capital of government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries.
Public expenditures are also broadly grouped according to their functions into: 1 economic development expenditures i. Public expenditures may further be classified according to the nature of funds, i. On the other hand, public revenues complement public expenditures and cover all income or receipts of the government treasury used to support government expenditures.
Classical economist Adam Smith categorized public revenues based on two principal sources, stating: "The revenue which must defray…the necessary expenses of government may be drawn either, first from some fund which peculiarly belongs to the sovereign or commonwealth, and which is independent of the revenue of the people, or, secondly, from the revenue of the people. Under the first aspect, the State could hold property and engage in trade, thereby deriving what is called its quasi private income or revenues, and which "peculiarly belonged to the sovereign.
In the Philippines, public revenues are generally derived from the following sources, to wit: 1 tax revenues i. More specifically, public revenues are classified as follows: This phase is also known as the Budget Authorization Phase, and involves the significant participation of the Legislative through its deliberations. The Appropriations Committee and its various Sub-Committees schedule and conduct budget hearings to examine the PAPs of the departments and agencies.
After transmission, the Senate conducts its own committee hearings on the GAB. The House of Representatives and the Senate then constitute a panel each to sit in the Bicameral Conference Committee for the purpose of discussing and harmonizing the conflicting provisions of their versions of the GAB. The "harmonized" version of the GAB is next presented to the President for approval. If, by the end of any fiscal year, the Congress shall have failed to pass the GAB for the ensuing fiscal year, the GAA for the preceding fiscal year shall be deemed re-enacted and shall remain in force and effect until the GAB is passed by the Congress.
With the GAA now in full force and effect, the next step is the implementation of the budget. The Budget Execution Phase is primarily the function of the DBM, which is tasked to perform the following procedures, namely: 1 to issue the programs and guidelines for the release of funds; 2 to prepare an Allotment and Cash Release Program; 3 to release allotments; and 4 to issue disbursement authorities.
Prior to this, the various departments and agencies are required to submit Budget Execution Documents BED to outline their plans and performance targets by laying down the physical and financial plan, the monthly cash program, the estimate of monthly income, and the list of obligations that are not yet due and demandable. The ARP sets a limit for allotments issued in general and to a specific agency. The CRP fixes the monthly, quarterly and annual disbursement levels. Allotments, which authorize an agency to enter into obligations, are issued by the DBM.
Allotments are lesser in scope than appropriations, in that the latter embrace the general legislative authority to spend. Obligations may be incurred in various ways, like hiring of personnel, entering into contracts for the supply of goods and services, and using utilities.
In order to settle the obligations incurred by the agencies, the DBM issues a disbursement authority so that cash may be allocated in payment of the obligations. The NCA specifies the maximum amount of cash that can be withdrawn from a government servicing bank for the period indicated. Actual disbursement or spending of government funds terminates the Budget Execution Phase and is usually accomplished through the Modified Disbursement Scheme under which disbursements chargeable against the National Treasury are coursed through the government servicing banks.
It also allows the DBM to assess the performance of agencies during the fiscal year for the purpose of implementing reforms and establishing new policies. Policy is always a part of every budget and fiscal decision of any Administration. When he assumed office in the middle of , President Aquino made efficiency and transparency in government spending a significant focus of his Administration.
Yet, although such focus resulted in an improved fiscal deficit of 0. The disbursements under the DAP contributed 1. The DAP thus proved to be a demonstration that expenditure was a policy instrument that the Government could use to direct the economies towards growth and development.
The earliest available document relating to the genesis of the DAP was the memorandum of October 12, from Sec. Abad seeking the approval of the President to implement the proposed DAP.
We are already working with all the agencies concerned for the immediate execution of the projects therein. The delay in payment is due to the delay in the certification of the LGU counterpart. Without it, the NG is obliged to pay the full amount. Philpost: Purchase of foreclosed property. LCOP: a. Pediatric Pulmonary Program b. Bio-regenerative Technology Program Stem-Cell Research — subject to legal review and presentation 35 70 COA: IT infrastructure program and hiring of additional litigational experts DA: a.
Mindanao Rural Development Project 2, 1, 2, 1, c. DAR: a. Agrarian Reform Communities Project 2 b. Landowners Compensation 1, 1, 1, 5, DOJ: Operating requirements of 50 investigation agents and 15 state attorneys 11 11 DOST a.
Establishment of National Meterological and Climate Center b. DPWH: Various infrastructure projects 5, 5, DOH: Hiring of nurses and midwives LGU Support Fund 6, 6, Various Other Local Projects 6, 6, The memorandum of October 12, was followed by another memorandum for the President dated December 12, requesting omnibus authority to consolidate the savings and unutilized balances for fiscal year Pertinent portions of the memorandum of December 12, read:.
In addition, Mr. President, this measure will allow us to undertake projects even if their implementation carries over to without necessarily impacting on our budget deficit cap next year.
Furthermore, it is assured that the proposed realignments shall be within the authorized Expenditure level. Please note that we have classified the list of proposed projects as follows:. Substantially identical requests for authority to pool savings and to fund proposed projects were contained in various other memoranda from Sec. Abad dated June 25, , September 4, , December 19, , May 20, , and September 25, In order to implement the June25, memorandum, Sec.
Abad issued NBC No. In the event that a measure is necessary to further improve the operational efficiency of the government, the President is authorized to suspend or stop further use of funds allotted for any agency or expenditure authorized in the General Appropriations Act. For the first five months of , the National Government has not met its spending targets.
In order to accelerate spending and sustain the fiscal targets during the year, expenditure measures have to be implemented to optimize the utilization of available resources.
Also, they are asked to formulate strategies and improvement plans for the rest of In line with this, the President, per directive dated June 27, authorized the withdrawal of unobligated allotments of agencies with low levels of obligations as of June 30, , both for continuing and current allotments.
He addressed the controversy on October 30, ahead of the SC hearing on the budget scheme. He asked the people to focus on the pork barrel controversy instead. And not for later , not soon ; but— now : Programs that could be implemented immediately were implemented immediately," he said. The Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional for usurping Congress's power of the purse. The SC ruling will delay government projects, he argued.
He announced that the government will file a motion for reconsideration and called on the Justices to see DAP his way.
Thus, to the Supreme Court, our message: Do not bar us from doing what we swore to do. Let us, therefore, end this vicious cycle that has taken our people hostage," Aquino said. As it turns out, the critics may have been right. Over a third of the P But instead of high-impact projects, the ALGU was partly spent on items like food and gas, burial assistance, greening and beautification, transportation, scholarships, educational incentives, assistance to indigent patients, livelihood projects, and training.
In a sense, the DAP was also in that nature. While the DBM report shows the ALGU was partly used to pave roads, repair public markets, and construct day care centers, there is no data to show how P4. Hindi mo nga ma-account eh, how can you say hindi ninakaw yan? A previous report had linked four senators to the misuse of the DAP. Of the P That this was pork barrel was confirmed by no less than one of the proponents, former congressman and now Senator JV Ejercito.
He said he received a call from the office of Speaker Feliciano Belmonte just days after he signed the impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Renato Corona in December , and was asked to choose projects from a limited menu.
0コメント