The Supreme Court ruled that a provision in the General Appropriations Act (GAA) of 2000, directing funds for the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR) to be used to wind up its operations, was constitutional. The Court held that the provision was not an impermissible rider because it related specifically to the CAR’s appropriation. This decision affirmed Congress’s power to determine how appropriated funds are spent and clarified the extent to which budgetary policies can be included in appropriations bills, even if they affect the continued operation of government bodies.

Cordillera’s Sunset: When Regional Aspirations Meet Congressional Prerogatives

This case arose from a challenge to the validity of a specific provision in the 2000 General Appropriations Act (GAA) that allocated funds for the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR) solely for winding up its operations and paying separation benefits. Petitioners, representing various interests within the CAR, argued that this provision was an unconstitutional rider and an attempt to unilaterally repeal Executive Order (E.O.) No. 220, which established the CAR. They claimed the government was reneging on its commitments to the Cordillera people. The central legal question was whether Congress could, through an appropriations bill, effectively discontinue the operations of a government entity like the CAR, especially considering its unique status and the historical context of peace negotiations in the region.

The Court began by addressing the constitutionality of the provision under scrutiny, specifically focusing on whether it constituted a **rider**, which is a provision not germane to the subject or purpose of the bill. The Constitution prohibits riders to prevent “hodge-podge or log-rolling legislation,” ensuring that each provision in a bill has a reasonable relation to its subject matter. The petitioners argued that the allocation of funds for winding up the CAR’s activities was unrelated to the general subject of the GAA and, therefore, an impermissible rider.

However, the Court disagreed, emphasizing the presumption of constitutionality afforded to legislative enactments. It held that the challenged provision was directly related to a specific appropriation item within the GAA—the allocation for the CAR. The provision merely specified the conditions under which those funds could be used, namely, for winding up operations and paying separation benefits. The Court emphasized that inherent in the power of appropriation is the power to specify how the money shall be spent.

“Explicit is the requirement that a provision in the Appropriations Bill should relate specifically to some ‘particular appropriation’ therein.”

Building on this principle, the Court distinguished the case from previous rulings where provisions in appropriations acts were struck down because they did not relate to any particular or distinctive appropriation. In those cases, the provisions applied generally to all items disapproved or reduced by Congress, requiring reference to external sources to determine their application. Here, the provision was particular, unambiguous, and appropriate, meeting the germaneness standard required by the Constitution. The Court stated that a provision is particular if it relates specifically to a distinct item of appropriation in the bill and does not refer generally to the entire appropriations bill. It is unambiguous when its application or operation is apparent on the face of the bill, and it does not necessitate reference to details or sources outside the appropriations bill. Finally, it is an appropriate provision or clause when its subject matter does not necessarily have to be treated in a separate legislation.

The petitioners further contended that the questioned provision effectively abolished the CAR, which could not be done through an appropriations act. The Court clarified that the reduction in the CAR’s budgetary allocation did not abolish the entity but merely discontinued its programs and activities. Moreover, even if the provision had the effect of abolishing certain offices, the Court affirmed Congress’s authority to do so, as the creation and abolition of public offices are primarily legislative functions, except for those created by the Constitution.

“An office created by the legislature is wholly within the power of that body, and it may prescribe the mode of filling the office and the powers and duties of the incumbent, and, if it sees fit, abolish the office.”

The Court also addressed the argument that the abolition of the CAR violated the constitutional mandate for autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras. It clarified that the CAR created by E.O. No. 220 was not the autonomous region contemplated in the Constitution but merely an administrative region designed to coordinate services pending the establishment of an autonomous region. The Court held that E.O. No. 220 had not established an autonomous regional government. Instead, it had created a region, covering a specified area, for administrative purposes with the main objective of coordinating the planning and implementation of programs and services; indeed, as its very name denotes, it is a mere administrative region.

Finally, the Court rejected the argument that Congress could not unilaterally amend or repeal E.O. No. 220 because it was a product of peace negotiations and a social and political contract. The Court emphasized that there is no such thing as an irrepealable law, and Congress has the plenary power to amend or repeal any law, including E.O. No. 220. The Court further stated that it is without authority to compel the Executives branch to implement the provisions of E.O. No. 220 or to restore its budgetary allocation to its previous level. No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law, in accordance with Section 29(1), Article VI, CONSTITUTION.

In summary, the Court’s decision affirmed the following key principles:

• Congress has broad discretion in determining how appropriated funds are spent.
• Provisions in appropriations bills must relate specifically to appropriation items but can include qualifications and restrictions on expenditures.
• The power to create and abolish public offices, except those created by the Constitution, lies with the legislature.
• Congress has the power to amend or repeal any law, including executive orders.

The Court acknowledged the petitioners’ concerns regarding the need for regional autonomy in the Cordillera region and expressed hope that Congress would enact an organic act acceptable to the people of the Cordilleras. However, it ultimately deferred to the constitutional powers of Congress and the Executive branch.

FAQs

This case highlights the ongoing tension between the pursuit of regional autonomy and the constitutional prerogatives of Congress over the national budget. While the Court acknowledged the aspirations of the Cordillera people, it ultimately upheld the power of Congress to make budgetary decisions, even if those decisions have significant impacts on regional governance.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: NESTOR G. ATITIW, ET AL. VS. RONALDO B. ZAMORA, ET AL., G.R. No. 143374, September 30, 2005