SC: Lump-sum discretionary funds in 2014 GAA constitutional

Several kinds of lump-sum discretionary funds have been upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court (SC), following a petition to declare as illegal four lump-sum funds in the 2014 General Appropriations Act (GAA).

The SC in full session last Tuesday said that the P1-billion Contingency Fund, P139.9-billion Unprogrammed Fund, P2.5-billion E-Government Fund and the P405-million Local Government Support Fund in the 2014 GAA were constitutional for following the rules on singular correspondence or line-item.

The petition was filed by Presidential Anti-Corruption Commission (PACC) commissioner Greco Belgica when he was Manila City councilman.

“The Court held that the assailed appropriations in the 2014 GAA are valid items with discernible singular appropriation purpose in compliance with the rule on singular correspondence,” the SC said in its statement.

It added that the requirement of singular correspondence does not mean that all lump-sum appropriations are unconstitutional, hence, the specifically assailed appropriations are constitutional.

The case stemmed from the petition filed by Belgica who sought to prevent the use and disbursement of these alleged lump sum discretionary funds in the 2014 GAA.

Belgica earlier said the disputed lump-sum funds were like the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) declared unconstitutional by the SC.

He argued that the lumpsum discretionary funds in the 2014 GAA were contrary to the Court’s Nov. 19, 2013 decision in Belgica vs. Ochoa.

The 2013 Belgica ruling abolished the “pork barrel system” in its latest iteration as the PDAF Article in the 2013 GAA, and similar informal practices that allowed individual legislators to participate in the execution of the budget through post-enactment measure of identification of projects, for violation of the separation of powers by impinging on the authority of the executive to implement the national budget.

The Court explained the Unprogrammed Fund was constitutional as it specifically identified the public purposes for which the fund may be used and contained singularly corresponding purposes.

The Contingent Fund’s 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.

The SC previously ruled in the 2013 Belgica case that the Contingent Fund was a valid line-item appropriation.

On the E-Government Fund, the high court held that the same was legal, noting that 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.

Notably, these standards are already in place in existing executive issuances predating the assailed E-Government Fund provision, which the Court assumed the legislature to have been aware of.

As for Local Government Support Fund provision of 2014, the SC declared it constitutional because it provided sufficient standards, which set the limits of the executive branch’s authority to disburse the fund, the legislative policy behind the fund and identified the conditions under which the fund may be utilized.

The high court said the “petitioner ’s heavy reliance on the 2013 Belgica case, as precedent to argue that lump-sum appropriations are unconstitutional, was misplaced. The 2013 Belgica case discussed what is a singular correspondence and distinguished what is a prohibited lump-sum.”