Understanding the Constitutionality of Lump-Sum Appropriations in the Philippine Budget

G.R. No. 210503, October 08, 2019

Imagine a scenario where the government allocates funds for various projects without specifying exact amounts for each. This practice, known as lump-sum appropriations, has been a contentious issue in Philippine governance. The Supreme Court’s decision in the case involving Greco Antonious Beda B. Belgica challenged the constitutionality of these appropriations within the 2014 General Appropriations Act (GAA). At the heart of the matter was whether such budgetary practices align with the principles of separation of powers and the non-delegability of legislative authority.

Belgica argued that lump-sum discretionary funds in the 2014 GAA were unconstitutional, echoing concerns from a previous ruling that struck down similar funds in 2013. The central question was whether these appropriations violated the President’s item veto power and the legislative branch’s authority to appropriate funds.

Legal Context: The Framework of Philippine Budgetary Law

In the Philippines, the power of the purse is constitutionally vested in the Congress, which has the authority to appropriate funds through laws. The Constitution mandates that no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. This principle is enshrined in Article VI, Section 29(1) of the 1987 Constitution, which states: “No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.”

The term “appropriation” refers to the legislative authorization directing payment out of government funds for specified conditions or purposes. Appropriations can be made in the form of line-items, where a specified amount is allocated for a singular purpose, or lump-sums, where a single amount is designated for multiple purposes. The distinction is crucial because it affects the President’s ability to exercise his item veto power, which allows him to veto specific items within an appropriation bill without rejecting the entire legislation.

The 2013 Belgica case set a precedent by invalidating lump-sum appropriations that allowed post-enactment legislative involvement, deeming them a violation of the separation of powers. However, it also clarified that not all lump-sum appropriations are unconstitutional. The key is whether they allow the President to exercise his item veto power effectively and whether they adhere to the principles of non-delegability of legislative power.

Case Breakdown: The Journey of Belgica’s Challenge

Greco Antonious Beda B. Belgica filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of certain lump-sum appropriations in the 2014 GAA, including the Unprogrammed Fund, Contingent Fund, E-Government Fund, and Local Government Support Fund. His argument was rooted in the belief that these funds were similar to the pork barrel funds struck down in the 2013 case, which he claimed allowed for unconstitutional discretionary spending.

The case’s journey began with the filing of the petition on January 13, 2014, shortly after the passage of the 2014 GAA. Belgica sought to prevent the use and disbursement of these funds pending the resolution of his petition. The Supreme Court, however, did not issue a status quo ante order as requested.

The Court’s decision focused on whether these appropriations violated the doctrine of non-delegability of legislative power, the principle of separation of powers, and the President’s item veto power. The Court found that:

• The Unprogrammed Fund, despite being a lump-sum appropriation, was constitutional because it specified the public purposes for which the funds could be used, with corresponding amounts listed in Annex “A” of the 2014 GAA.
• The Contingent Fund was upheld as constitutional, as it was intended to cover unforeseen expenses and had been previously recognized as a valid appropriation in the 2013 Belgica case.
• The E-Government Fund was deemed constitutional because its nature as a cross-agency fund required it to be subject to administrative determination, with clear guidelines in place.
• The Local Government Support Fund was found to be constitutional, as it was allocated for specific maintenance and operating expenses, which were deemed sufficiently specific for the exercise of the President’s item veto power.

The Court emphasized that the rule on singular correspondence, which requires an appropriation to have a specified singular amount for a specified singular purpose, was not violated by these funds. The decision highlighted that lump-sum appropriations are not unconstitutional per se, but rather, they must allow the President to exercise his item veto power and adhere to the principles of non-delegability and separation of powers.

Justice Carpio’s separate opinion reiterated that lump-sum appropriations for multiple purposes do not negate the President’s item veto power if they have specified and singular purposes. Justice Bernabe’s concurring opinion added that a lump-sum appropriation can be valid if it funds multiple programs under one singular appropriation purpose.

Practical Implications: Navigating Future Budgetary Practices

The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Belgica case provides clarity on the use of lump-sum appropriations in the Philippine budget. It affirms that such appropriations can be constitutional if they adhere to the principles of singular correspondence and non-delegability, and allow the President to exercise his item veto power effectively.

For future budgetary practices, this ruling suggests that the government should ensure that lump-sum appropriations are accompanied by clear guidelines and specific purposes, which can be subject to the President’s veto. This decision also underscores the importance of maintaining a balance between legislative authority and executive discretion in the budgetary process.

Key Lessons:

• Ensure that lump-sum appropriations are clearly defined with specific purposes and corresponding amounts to avoid constitutional challenges.
• Maintain transparency in the budgetary process by providing detailed guidelines for the use of lump-sum funds.
• Respect the separation of powers by ensuring that appropriations allow the President to exercise his item veto power effectively.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a lump-sum appropriation?

A lump-sum appropriation is a single amount of money designated for multiple purposes within the government budget.

How does the Supreme Court’s ruling affect future budget legislation?

The ruling clarifies that lump-sum appropriations can be constitutional if they adhere to the principles of singular correspondence and non-delegability, and allow the President to exercise his item veto power effectively.

Can the President veto parts of a lump-sum appropriation?

Yes, the President can veto parts of a lump-sum appropriation if the appropriation is structured in a way that allows for such a veto, typically by specifying amounts for different purposes within the fund.

What are the key principles to consider when drafting appropriations?

Key principles include ensuring that appropriations are specific enough to allow the President to exercise his item veto power, and that they do not violate the principles of non-delegability and separation of powers.

How can government agencies ensure compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling?

Government agencies should ensure that lump-sum appropriations are accompanied by clear guidelines and specific purposes, and that they allow the President to exercise his item veto power effectively.

What role does the separation of powers play in budget appropriations?

The separation of powers ensures that the legislative branch has the authority to appropriate funds, while the executive branch has the power to implement the budget, including the ability to veto specific items.

Can lump-sum appropriations be used for cross-agency funds?

Yes, lump-sum appropriations can be used for cross-agency funds, as long as they are subject to clear guidelines and administrative determination.

ASG Law specializes in constitutional and administrative law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.