GR 71977, 27 February 1987

Demetria vs Alba

Facts:

This petition for prohibition with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction
assailed the constitutionality of the first paragraph of Section 44 of Presidential
Decree No. 1177, otherwise known as the "Budget Reform Decree of 1977." Said
paragraph provides that the President shall have the authority to transfer any fund,
appropriated for the different departments, bureaus, offices and agencies of the
Executive Department, which are included in the General Appropriations Act, to any
program, project or activity of any department, bureau, or office included in the
General Appropriations Act or approved after its enactment.

The petitioners contend that the assailed provision authorizes the illegal
transfer of public funds for failing to specify the purpose of the transfer and allowing
the President to override the constitutionally prescribed safeguards, form and
procedure, which amounts to an undue delegation of legislative power to the
executive, the exercise of which is or in excess of his authority and jurisdiction.

The Solicitor General, for the public respondents, questioned the legal
standing of the petitioners and contend that there is no justiciable controversy fit for
resolution or determination, and the provision under consideration was enacted
pursuant to Paragraph 5, Section 16, Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution, “No law
shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations, however, the President,
the Prime Minister, the Speaker, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the
heads of constitutional commis ions may by law be authorized to augment any item
in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other
items of their respective appropriations.”

The petitioners filed the instant petition as concerned citizens, as members of

the National Assembly/Batasan Pambansa representing millions of constituents, as
parties with shared general interest with the people of the Philippines, and as
taxpayers whose vital interests they sought to protect, replied to hold the resolution
of the present case in abeyance "until developments arise to enable the parties to
concretize their respective stands.

The Solicitor General filed a rejoinder with a motion to dismiss on the ground
that Paragraph 5, Section 16, Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution was abrogated by
the Freedom Constitution of March 25, 1986; hence, rendered the instant petition
moot and academic.

Issues:

1. Whether the Supreme Court can act upon the assailed executive act despite
being moot and academic.

2. Whether the petitioners have locus standi to question the constitutionality of

paragraph 1 of The Budget Reform Decree of 1977.
3. Whether the assailed provision authorizes undue delegation of legislative
power to the executive, hence, unconstitutional.

Ruling:

1. Yes. The Supreme Court can take cognizance of the case it being not only the
highest arbiter of legal questions but is also the conscience of the government.
Although the dispute has disappeared with the abolition of the Batas Pambansa,
this case need to be resolved for the guidance of and as a restraint upon the
future. The legal ambiguities cannot be disregarded and the case dismissed on
the pretext of being moot and academic. It is the duty of the judiciary to declare
what the other branches of the government had assumed to do, as void. This is
the essence of judicial power conferred by the Constitution.

2. Yes. As taxpayers, they have sufficient interest in preventing illegal spending of

public funds and may question the constitutionality of statutes concerned with
expenditure of public money to forestall abuses in the expenditure of public funds.

3. Yes. Section 44 of PD 1177 goes beyond the tenor of Section 16(5) by

empowering the President to indiscriminately transfer funds from one department
of the Executive Department to any program of any department included in the
General Appropriations Act, with disregard to the standards set in the fundamental
law, thereby amounting to an undue delegation of legislative powers. In the 1973
Constitution, it is explicitly stated that one cannot transfer an appropriation for one
item to another. It only allowed enactment of a law which authorized transfer of
funds in order to augment an item from savings in another item in the
appropriation of the government branch or constitutional body concerned. Such
constitutional violations therefore, render the provision in question null and void.

Petition granted. Paragraph 1 of Section 44 of Presidential Decree No. 1177 is

hereby declared null and void for being unconstitutional.