MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has dismissed for lack of merit the petition questioning the constitutionality of the “lump-sum discretionary funds” in the 2014 General Appropriations Act (GAA).
The said petition was filed back in 2014 by former Manila councilor and now Presidential Anti-Corruption Commission (PACC) Commissioner Greco Belgica who asked the Court to declare as unconstitutional the lump-sum discretionary funds in the P2.265-trillion budget for 2014.
In a statement, the Supreme Court Public Information Office said that Court found the Unprogrammed Fund, the Contingent Fund, the E-Government Fund, and the Local Government Support Fund in the budget were “valid items with discernible singular appropriation purpose in compliance with the rule on singular correspondence.”
The Court, as per the Supreme Court PIO, also provided an explanation for the constitutionality of the said funds.
- Unprogrammed Fund – constitutional as it specifically identified the public purposes for which the fund may be used and contained singularly corresponding purposes.
- Contingent Fund – constitutional because its purpose was to cover the funding requirement of new or urgent projects that need to be implemented during the year, and the foreign travel expenses of the Office of the President which were not and could not have been anticipated during budget preparation and authorization. Hence, the same cannot be itemized.
- E-Government Fund – its nature as a cross-agency fund required it to be subject to the determination by the administrative agencies of the ongoing strategic information and communication technology projects in the priority sectors identified by the Legislature in the budget.
- Local Government Support Fund – constitutional because it provided sufficient standards which set the limits of the Executive’s authority to disburse the LGSF, the legislative policy behind the fund, and identified the conditions under which the fund may be utilized.
In his petition, Belgica said that the the lump-sum discretionary funds contradict the high court’s decision last year against the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF).
But the Supreme Court PIO said that the Court ruled Belgica’s reliance on the PDAF ruling to be “misplaced.”
“The Court stressed that the requirement of singular correspondence does not mean that all lump-sum appropriations are unconstitutional per se; hence, the specifically assailed appropriations are constitutional,” the Supreme Court PIO said.
A copy of the decision has yet to be released. /je