SC affirms legality of LTO’s P836-M driver’s license project
MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has affirmed the constitutionality of the Land Transportation Office’s use of P341.7 million unspent funds from the agency’s 2016 budget to augment the amount appropriated in 2017 for its P836-million driver’s license card project with five-year validity.
The high court, in a 14-page decision made public recently, dismissed former ACTS-OFW Rep. Aniceto Bertiz III’s petition seeking to nullify the 2017 project.
Bertiz argued that it was unconstitutional to use the balance of the agency’s 2016 budget to finance the driver’s license project in 2017. He also asked the SC to stop the implementation of the project.
The respondents include Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea, Transportation Secretary Arthur Tugade, Budget Secretary Benjamin Diokno, National Treasurer Rosalia de Leon, Commission on Audit (COA) chair Michael Aguinaldo, LTO Assistant Secretary Edgar Galvante, and winning bidder Dermalog with Nextix and CFP joint venture.
The LTO-Bids and Awards Committee, in November 2016, conducted a pre-procurement conference for the 2017 driver’s license card project. Using the balance of P341,713,000 from the 2016 General Appropriations Act and its proposed budget of P528,793,000 in the 2017 National Expenditure Program, the LTO-BAC pegged the Approved Budget for the Contract (ABC) at P836,000,000.
“[T]he use of the Land Transportation Office of the amount appropriated under ‘Issuance of driver’s license and permits’ in the General Appropriations Act of 2016 to supplement the amount appropriated under ‘Issuance of driver’s license and permits’ in the General Appropriations Act of2017 is not unconstitutional,” the SC said in its ruling.
The SC said that the 2016 GAA authorized the use of appropriations in 2016 for 2017 and pointed out that Section 65 “is an example of ‘existing or continuing appropriations’ or ‘appropriations which have been previously enacted by Congress and which continue to remain valid as an appropriation authority for the expenditure of public funds.’”
It also said that the petitioner failed to show that the LTO committed grave abuse of discretion.
The SC also noted that while constant vigilance on the disbursement of public funds is laudable and should always be encouraged, it reminded those who wish to challenge such disbursements, or similar acts, that their vigilance should always be tempered with prudence and diligence.
“Care should be taken to examine the relevant provisions of law, especially when, as in this case, the concerned GAA contained a continuing appropriation clause,” it added.
