1 ARAULLO vs.

AQUINO
1. The Courts power of judicial review this authority to interpret and apply the laws neither wise nor desirable, besides being
extends to the Constitution. Before the clearly violative of the fundamental,
The respondents argue that the Executive has courts can determine whether a law is principles of our constitutional system of
not violated the GAA because savings as a constitutional or not, it will have to interpret government, particularly those governing the
concept is an ordinary species of and ascertain the meaning not only of said separation of powers.13
interpretation that calls for legislative, law, but also of the pertinent portion of the
instead of judicial, determination.11 Constitution in order to decide whether there The respondents cannot also ignore the
is a conflict between the two, because if there glaring fact that the petitions primarily and
This argument cannot stand. is, then the law will have to give way and has significantly alleged grave abuse of discretion
to be declared invalid and unconstitutional. on the part of the Executive in the
The consolidated petitions distinctly raised implementation of the DAP. The resolution of
the question of the constitutionality of the xxxx the petitions thus demanded the exercise by
acts and practices under the DAP, particularly the Court of its aforedescribed power of
their non-conformity with Section 25(5), We have already said that the Legislature judicial review as mandated by the
Article VI of the Constitution and the under our form of government is assigned the Constitution.
principles of separation of power and equal task and the power to make and enact laws,
protection. Hence, the matter is still entirely but not to interpret them. This is more true We now clarify.
within the Courts competence, and its with regard to the interpretation of the basic
determination does not pertain to Congress law, the Constitution, which is not within the Section 38 refers to the authority of the
to the exclusion of the Court. Indeed, the sphere of the Legislative department. If the President "to suspend or otherwise stop
interpretation of the GAA and its definition of Legislature may declare what a law means, or further expenditure of funds allotted for any
savings is a foremost judicial function. This is what a specific portion of the Constitution agency, or any other expenditure authorized
because the power of judicial review vested means, especially after the courts have in in the General Appropriations Act." When the
in the Court is exclusive. As clarified in actual case ascertain its meaning by President suspends or stops expenditure of
Endencia and Jugo v. David:12 interpretation and applied it in a decision, funds, savings are not automatically
this would surely cause confusion and generated until it has been established that
Under our system of constitutional instability in judicial processes and court such funds or appropriations are free from
government, the Legislative department is decisions. Under such a system, a final court any obligation or encumbrance, and that the
assigned the power to make and enact laws. determination of a case based on a judicial work, activity or purpose for which the
The Executive department is charged with interpretation of the law of the Constitution appropriation is authorized has been
the execution of carrying out of the may be undermined or even annulled by a completed, discontinued or abandoned.
provisions of said laws. But the interpretation subsequent and different interpretation of
and application of said laws belong the law or of the Constitution by the
exclusively to the Judicial department. And Legislative department. That would be
 2 ARAULLO vs. AQUINO
It is necessary to reiterate that under Section withdrawal and transfer of unobligated fix rates of compensation not exceeding the
5.7 of NBC No. 541, the withdrawn allotments remain unconstitutional. But highest rates authorized by law for
unobligated allotments may be: then, whether the withdrawn allotments compensation and pay plans of the
have actually been reissued to their original government and allocate and disburse such
5.7.1 Reissued for the original programs and programs or projects is a factual matter sums as may be provided by law or prescribed
projects of the agencies/OUs concerned, determinable by the proper tribunal. by them in the course of the discharge of
from which the allotments were withdrawn; their functions.
Also, withdrawals of unobligated allotments
5.7.2 Realigned to cover additional funding pursuant to NBC No. 541 which shortened the Fiscal autonomy means freedom from
for other existing programs and projects of availability of appropriations for MOOE and outside control. If the Supreme Court says it
the agency/OU; or capital outlays, and those which were needs 100 typewriters but DBM rules we
transferred to PAPs that were not need only 10 typewriters and sends its
5.7.3 Used to augment existing programs and determined to be deficient, are still recommendations to Congress without even
projects of any agency and to fund priority constitutionally infirm and invalid. informing us, the autonomy given by the
programs and projects not considered in the Constitution becomes an empty and illusory
2012 budget but expected to be started or At this point, it is likewise important to platitude.
implemented during the current year. underscore that the reversion to the General
Fund of unexpended balances of The Judiciary, the Constitutional
Although the withdrawal of unobligated appropriations savings included pursuant Commissions, and the Ombudsman must
allotments may have effectively resulted in to Section 28 Chapter IV, Book VI of the have the independence and flexibility needed
the suspension or stoppage of expenditures Administrative Code22 does not apply to the in the discharge of their constitutional duties.
through the issuance of negative Special Constitutional Fiscal Autonomy Group The imposition of restrictions and constraints
Allotment Release Orders (SARO), the (CFAG), which include the Judiciary, Civil on the manner the independent
reissuance of withdrawn allotments to the Service Commission, Commission on Audit, constitutional offices allocate and utilize the
original programs and projects is a clear Commission on Elections, Commission on funds appropriated for their operations is
indication that the program or project from Human Rights, and the Office of the anathema to fiscal autonomy and violative
which the allotments were withdrawn has Ombudsman. The reason for this is that the not only of the express mandate of the
not been discontinued or abandoned. fiscal autonomy enjoyed by the CFAG Constitution but especially as regards the
Consequently, as we have pointed out in the Supreme Court, of the independence and
Decision, "the purpose for which the x x x contemplates a guarantee of full separation of powers upon which the entire
withdrawn funds had been appropriated was flexibility to allocate and utilize their fabric of our constitutional system is based. x
not yet fulfilled, or did not yet cease to exist, resources with the wisdom and dispatch that x x23
rendering the declaration of the funds as their needs require. It recognizes the power
savings impossible."21 In this regard, the and authority to levy, assess and collect fees,
 3 ARAULLO vs. AQUINO
On the other hand, Section 39 is evidently in x x x The concept of the Constitution as the that: The role of the Constitution cannot be
conflict with the plain text of Section 25(5), fundamental law, setting forth the criterion overlooked. It is through the Constitution
Article VI of the Constitution because it for the validity of any public act whether that the fundamental powers of government
allows the President to approve the use of proceeding from the highest official or the are established, limited and defined, and by
any savings in the regular appropriations lowest functionary, is a postulate of our which these powers are distributed among
authorized in the GAA for programs and system of government. That is to manifest the several departments. The Constitution is
projects of any department, office or agency fealty to the rule of law, with priority the basic and paramount law to which all
to cover a deficit in any other item of the accorded to that which occupies the topmost other laws must conform and to which all
regular appropriations. As such, Section 39 rung in the legal hierarchy. The three persons, including the highest officials of the
violates the mandate of Section 25(5) departments of government in the discharge land, must defer. Constitutional doctrines
because the latter expressly limits the of the functions with which it is [sic] must remain steadfast no matter what may
authority of the President to augment an entrusted have no choice but to yield be the tides of time. It cannot be simply made
item in the GAA to only those in his own obedience to its commands. Whatever limits to sway and accommodate the call of
Department out of the savings in other items it imposes must be observed. Congress in the situations and much more tailor itself to the
of his own Departments appropriations. enactment of statutes must ever be on guard whims and caprices of government and the
Accordingly, Section 39 cannot serve as a lest the restrictions on its authority, whether people who run it.27
valid authority to justify cross-border substantive or formal, be transcended. The
transfers under the DAP. Augmentations Presidency in the execution of the laws
under the DAP which are made by the cannot ignore or disregard what it ordains. In
Executive within its department shall, its task of applying the law to the facts as
however, remain valid so long as the found in deciding cases, the judiciary is called
requisites under Section 25(5) are complied upon to maintain inviolate what is decreed by
with. the fundamental law. Even its power of
judicial review to pass upon the validity of the
In this connection, the respondents must acts of the coordinate branches in the course
always be reminded that the Constitution is of adjudication is a logical corollary of this
the basic law to which all laws must conform. basic principle that the Constitution is
No act that conflicts with the Constitution can paramount. It overrides any governmental
be valid.24 In Mutuc v. Commission on measure that fails to live up to its mandates.
Elections,25 therefore, we have emphasized Thereby there is a recognition of its being the
the importance of recognizing and bowing to supreme law.
the supremacy of the Constitution:
Also, in Biraogo v. Philippine Truth
Commission of 2010,26 we have reminded