SC junks Syjuco petitions against 2015 budget

By: Tetch Torres-Tupas - 10 years ago

Former Iloilo Representative Augusto “Boboy” Syjuco. FILE PHOTO

MANILA, Philippines–The Supreme Court dismissed outright for lack of merit two petitions filed by former Iloilo Representative Augusto Syjuco Jr. questioning the legality of the 2015 budget.

In the first petition, Syjuco claimed that the 2015 National Expenditure Program is full of lump-sum allocations that are no different from pork barrel funds and the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), both of which were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

A second petition questioned the legality of the supplemental budget.

“The creation, formulation, submission and approval of the National Expenditure Program for 2015 and the 2015 General Appropriations Bill are as unconstitutional,” Syjuco said.

He cited the lump-sum allocation of P501.670 billion for the President’s Special Purpose Fund and P20.9 billion in Grassroots Participatory Budgeting.

The high court, in its ruling said the petition is premature “because it does not allege any specific expenditure, fund release or any executive act or issuance to this effect.”

While Syjuco is suing as a taxpayer, he failed to cite any injury to him or to taxpayers “in general but has only posed hypothetical or feigned problems, or mere academic questions. On this matter, the court also stated it does not render advisory opinions.”

In his second petition, Syjuco said the Aquino administration is trying its best to circumvent the high court’s ruling on the DAP against the cross-border transfer of funds to augment the budget of different agencies outside the executive branch by redefining savings.

But the high court said the petitioner failed to present enough evidence to show that the supplemental budget is unconstitutional.

“The court noted that petitioner had not shown any substantial grounds to have the supplemental budget declared unconstitutional other than his invocation of the court’s rulings in the PDAF and the DAP cases. In both decisions, the Court had not passed on the constitutionality of a supplemental budget,” the high court said.