PDF

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
CONFEDERATION FOR UNITY,
RECOGNITION AND ADVANCEMENT
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
(COURAGE), represented by its 1st Vice
President SANTIAGO DASMARINAS JR.;
ROSALINDA NART ATES, for herself and ..
as National President of the Consolidated
Union of Employees National Housing
Authority (CUE-NHA); MANUEL
BACLAGON, for himself and as President
of the Social Welfare Employees
Association of the Philippines
Department of Social Welfare and
Development Central Office (SWEAP-
DSWD CO); ANTONIA PASCUAL, for
herself and as National President of
Department of Agrarian Reform
Employees Association (DAREA);
ALBERT MAGALANG, for himself and as
President of Environment Management
Bureau Employees Union (EMBEU); and
MARCIAL ARABA for himself and as
President of Kapisanan Para Sa
Kagalingan ng mga Kawani ng MMDA
(KKK-MMDA);
Petitioners,
209517
-versus-
G.R. No. __ _
For : Certiorari and
Prohibition with Application
for a Temporary Restraining
Order and/or Preliminary
Injunction
BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO IIi,
President of the Republic of the Philippines,
PAQUITO N. OCHOA JR., Executive
Secretary, and FLORENCIO B. ABAD,
Secretary of the Department of Budget and
Management,
Respondents.
1
)(-------------------------------------------------------)(
PETITION for CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS
PETITIONERS, by counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully state:
NATURE OF THE PETITION
Petitioners, through the instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65
of the Rules of Court as amended, seek to annul or nullify the
Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) as officially embodied in
the National Budget Circular No. 541 dated July 18, 2012 issued by
the Department of Budget and Management (DBM).
Petitioners also seek to prohibit, enjoin, or prevent respondents
from implementing or enforcing the said Disbursement Acceleration
Program (DAP) as contained in the said DBM Budget National
Budget Circular through the instant Petition for Prohibition under Rule
65 of the Rules of Court as amended.
Petitioners also pray for the issuance of a temporary restraining
order and a preliminary injunction pending the resolution of the
instant Petition to immediately prevent respondents from enforcing or
implementing the questioned issuance.
Respondents issued the Disbursement Acceleration Program
(DAP) as contained in the said National Budget Circular, with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to acting without or in eJ<cess of
jurisdiction and petitioners have no appeal nor any plain, speedy and
adequate remedy under the ordinary course of law eJ<cept through
the instant Petition.
Certified true copy of the said DBM National Budget Circular No.
541, Series of 2012 is here attached as Annex "A".
PARTIES
A. Petitioners
Petitioner Confederation for Unity, Recognition and Advancement
of Government Employees (COURAGE ) is a recognized umbrella
2
organization of public sector labor unions with national headquarter
at No. 118 Scout Rallos Street, Sacred Heart, Quezon City.
Petitioner COURAGE has a total of 256 unions, organizations,
associations and regional formations affiliated with a mass base of
more than 300,000 workers from National Government Agencies,
Local Government Units, State Universities and Colleges and
Government-Owned and Controlled Corporations.
Petitioner COURAGE is represented in the instant Petition by its
First Vice-President, Santiago Dasmarinas Jr., who has been
authorized to file the same as evidenced by a Secretary's Certificate
herein attached as Annex "B". He is ot legal age, married, and
holding office at the same address as petitioner COURAGE.
Petitioner Rosalinda Nartates is of legal age, a government
employee at the National Housing Authority (NHA) with address at
NHA Building, Elliptical Road, Diliman, Quezon City. She is bringing
the instant Petition as a government employee, as a taxpayer, and as
National President of the Consolidated Union of Employees at the
NHA.
Petitioner Manuel Baclagon is of legal age, an employee at the
Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) with
address at DSWD, Batasan Road, Brgy. Payatas, Quezon City. He is
bringing the instant Petition as a taxpayer, as a government
employee, and as President of the Social Welfare Employees
Association of the Philippines Central Office, the recognized
bargaining union of rank-and-file employee at the DSWD.
Petitioner Antonia Pascual is of legal age, an employee at the
Department of Agrarian Reform with address at DAR Central Office,
Elliptical Road, Quezon City. She is bringing the instant Petition as a
taxpayer, as a government employee, and as National President of
Department of Agrarian Reform Employees Association.
Petitioner Albert Magalang is of legal age, an employee of the
Environment Management Bureau with address at DENR Compound,
Visayas Avenue, Quezon City. He is bringing the instant Petition as a
taxpayer, as a government employee and as President of the
Environment Management Bureau Employees Union (EMBEU).
Petitioner Marcial Araba is of legal age, rank-and file employee at
the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA), with address at
MMDA Bldg., EDSA, Guadalupe, Makati City. He is bringing the
instant action as a government employee, as a taxpayer, and as the
President of the Kapisanan Para sa Kagalingan ng Mga Kawani ng
MMDA (KKK), the recognized bargaining agent of the MMDA.
3
B. Respondents
Respondent BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO Ill is being sued as
President of the Republic of the Philippines and as the head of the
Executive Department with the duty to implement all laws of the land.
He is holding office at the Office of the President, New Executive
Building, Malacanang Palace, J.P. Laurel St., San Miguel, Manila,
where he may be served notices, orders, and other processes of this
Honorable Court.
Respondent PAQUITO N. OCHOA JR., is being sued as the
Executive Secretary who is the primary alter ego of the President. He
holds office at the Office of the Executive Secretary, New Executive
Building, Malacanang Palace, J.P. Laurel St., San Miguel, Manila,
where he may be served notices, orders, and other processes of this
Honorable Court.
Respondent FLORENCIO B. ABAD is being sued as the
Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management under the
executive department. His office is at General Solano St., San
Miguel, Manila, where he may be served notices, orders, and other
processes of this Honorable Court.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The issuance subject of the instant Petition , the much-talked
about Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) under DBM
National Budget Circular No. 541 (Circular 541 ), came to public
attention in August 2013.
2. During the official budget deliberation of the Department of
Budget and Management (DBM) and the Development Budget
Coordination Committee (DBCC) conducted on August 5, 2013,
Bayan Muna Party-List Rep. Neri Colmenares asked respondent
Florencio Abad about the nature of DBM Circular 541 .
3. Respondent Florencio Abad replied that Circular 541 is
intended to accelerate disbursement under a "Disbursement
Acceleration Program" (DAP ) by withdrawing unobligated allotments
from "under-spending" agencies.
4. Rep. Neri Colmenares then asked if Circular 541 is
constitutional considering that the said circular authorizes withdrawal
of funds during the middle of the year and realigns it to other
projects.
5. Respondent Florencio Abad replied that it is only intended
4
to be realigned for existing projects anyway. He made the additional
statement that if the withdrawn funds will be spent on projects not
contained in the General Appropriations Act, then indeed, the same
would be unconstitutional.
6. Further questioning made respondent Florencio Abad reveal
that under the DAP, P75 billion was realigned for 2011 while for
2012 the amount realigned was P27 billion. He likewise added that
these funds came from agencies such as the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Department of Public
Works and Highways (DPWH), Department of Transportation and
Communications (DOTC}, Department of Health (DOH), Department
of Social Welfare and Development, Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR), Department of Education (DepEd), and the Department of
Agriculture (DA).
7. On September 25, 2013, Senator Jinggoy Estrada made an
interesting Privilege Speech. He claimed therein that after the
conviction of former Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona in
his impeachment trial, senators who voted for CJ Corona's conviction
were allotted P50 million each as provided in a private and
confidential letter memorandum by the then Chairman of the Senate
Finance Committee.
8. During the plenary deliberation for the approval of the 2014
Budget on September 27, 2013 Rep. Neri Colmenares again inquired
about Circular No. 541 from the Office of the President which was
then represented by Respondent Paquito Ochoa Jr. and on the floor
by Appropriations Committee Chairman Rep. Isidro Ungab.
9. Respondent Ochoa informed Rep. Neri Colmenares
that indeed, the DAP existed , but it was intended to realign funds
from under-spending agencies in order to accelerate growth, implying
that the DAP was with the approval of Pres. Aquino.
1 O.On September 28, 2013 respondent Florencio Abad issued a
statement through the DBM website. He explained the purpose of
the additional fund releases to senators as mentioned in the speech
of Sen. Estrada and said that the same came from the Disbursement
Acceleration Program (DAP).
11. Respondent Florencio Abad claimed that these funds were
not bribes, but were necessary to "help accelerate economic
expansion".
12. The Department of Budget and Management (DBM)
issued National Budget Circular No. 541 on July 18, 2012. The
salient provisions of this Circular provides :
5
" 3. 0 Coverage
3. 1 These guidelines shall cover the withdrawal of unobligated
allotments as of June 30, 2012 of all national government agencies
(NGAs) charged against FY 2011 Continuing Appropriation (RA
No.10147) and FY 2012 Current Appropriation (RA No. 10155)
XXX
3. 2 The withdrawal of unobligated allotments may cover the identified
programs, projects and activities of the departments/agencies
reflected in the DBM list shown as Annex A or specific programs and
projects as may be identified by the agencies.
XXX
5. 7 The withdrawn allotments may be:
5. 7. 1 Reissued for the original programs and projects of the
agencies/OUs concerned, from which the allotments were withdrawn;
5. 7.2 Realigned to cover additional funding for other existing
programs and projects of the agency!OU; or
5.7.3 Used to augment existing programs and projects of any agency
and to fund priority programs and projects not considered in the 2012
budget but expected to be started or implemented during the current
year."
13. The DBM website claimed that in 2011, long before the
issuance of DBM National Budget Circular 541, .the DAP has already
been implemented and the Executive Department has been
withdrawing funds and realigning appropriations approved by
Congress.
14. According to the DBM website, the DAP is a stimulus
package under the Aquino administration designed to fast-track
public spending and push economic growth. This covers high-impact
budgetary programs and projects which will be augmented out of the
savings generated during the year and additional revenue sources.
The DAP was approved by the President on October 12, 2011 upon
the recommendation of the Development Budget Coordination
Committee (DBCC) and the Cabinet Clusters.
15. The DBM website stated that the DAP was
conceptualized in September 2011 and introduced in October
2011, in the context of the prevailing underspending in government
disbursements for the first eight months of 2011 that dampened the
country's economic growth. Such government intervention was
6
needed as key programs and projects, most notably public
infrastructure, were moving slowly. The need to accelerate public
spending was also brought about by the global economic situation as
well as the financial toll of calamities in that year. While the economy
has generally improved in 2012 and 2013, the use of DAP was
continued to sustain the pace of public spending as well as economic
expansion.
16. The DBM website also explained the amounts of
programs and projects funded through the DAP in 2011 to 2013.
17. It claimed that for 2011-2012, a total of P142.23 billion
was released for programs and projects id,entified through the DAP,
of which P83.53 billion is for 2011 and 58.70 billion is for 2012.
18. In 2011, the amount was allegedly used to provide
additional funds for programs/projects such as healthcare, public
works, housing and resettlement, and agriculture, among others. In
2012, the funds were used to augment tourism road infrastructure,
school infrastructure, rehabilitation and extension of light rail transit
systems, and sitio electrification, among others.
19. In 2013, about P15.13 billion has been approved for the
hiring of policemen, additional funds for the modernization of PNP,
the redevelopment of Roxas Boulevard, and funding for the Typhoon
Pablo rehabilitation projects for Compostela Valley and Davao
Oriental.
20. As to the kind of projects funded through the DAP, the
DBM website provided that the programs and projects must meet the
following requirements:
a) Fast-moving or quick-disbursing, e.g. the payment of
obligations incurred from premium subsidy for indigent
families in the National Health Insurance Program;
b) Urgent or priority in terms of social and economic
development objectives, e.g. the upgrading of equipment
and facilities for specialty hospitals, rehabilitation of Light
Rail Transit and Metro Rail Transit, and the Disaster Risk
and Exposure Assessment for Mitigation (DREAM)
program of DOST;
c) Programs or projects performing well and could deliver
more services to the public with the additional funds (e.g.
Training for Work Scholarship Program of DOLE-TESDA).
7
21. As to the question of how much were the programs and
projects endorsed by legislators, the DBM website claims that of the
total DAP approved by the Office of the President for 2011-2012
amounting to a total of P142.23 billion, 9 percent was released to
programs and projects identified by legislators.
22. The DBM website also explained that the funds used for
programs and projects identified through DAP were sourced from
savings generated by the government, the realignment of which is
subject to the approval of the President; as well as the
Unprogrammed Fund that can be tapped when government has
windfall revenue collections ( e.g., unexpected remittance of
dividends from the GOCCs and Government Financial Institutions
(GF!s), sale of government assets).
23. According to the DBM website, savings were sourced from:
a) the pooling of unreleased appropriations such as
unreleased Personnel Services appropriations which will
lapse at the end of the year, unreleased appropriations of
slow moving projects and discontinued projects per Zero-
Based Budgeting findings; and
b) the withdrawal of unobligated allotments, also for slow-
moving programs and projects, which have earlier been
released to national government agencies.
24. In line with laws on the use of savings , DBM ensured that
programs and projects funded through DAP have an appropriation
cover; meaning, these are existing programs and projects in the
General Appropriations Act (GAA) that can be augmented by such
savings.
25. Thus, according to the DBM website, the justification for
the creation and implementation of the DAP are (1) Sec. 25(5), Art. VI
of the 1987 Constitution, (2) Sec. 49 and 38, Chapter 5, Book VI of
Executive Order No. 292, (3) "use of savings" provisions found in the
General Appropriation Acts for Fiscal Years 2011,2012 and 2013.
26. According to Respondent Florencio Abad, " most
releases in 2012 were made during the period October-December,
based entirely on the request submitted to us by the Senators."
27. He detailed the releases to Senators as follows:
Antonio Trillanes (October 2012-P50M)
Manuel Villar (October 2012-P50M)
Ramon Revilla (October 2012-P50M)
Francis Pangilinan (October 2012-P30M)
8
Loren Legarda (October 2012-P50M)
Lito Lapid (October 2012-P50M)
Jinggoy Estrada (October
Alan Cayetano (October 2012-P50M)
Edgardo Angara (October 2012-PSOM)
Ralph Recto (October 2012-P23 December 2012-P27M)
Koko Pimentel (October 2012-P25.5M; November 2012-PSM;
December 2012-P15M)
Tito Sotto (October 2012-P11 M; November 2012-P39M)
Teofisto Guingona (October 2012-P35M; December 2012-P9M)
Serge Osmena (December 2012-P50M)
Then-Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile (December 2012-
P92M) .
President Frank Dri!on (December 2012-P1 OOM).
28. According to respondent Florencio Abad, there were two
earlier releases made in late August of that same year: Greg
Honasan (P50M) and Francis Escudero (P99M).
29. No releases were made in 2012 to Senators Ping Lacson,
Joker Arroyo, Pia Cayetano, Bongbong Marcos and Miriam Defensor-
Santiago.
30. In 2013 however, releases were made for funding requests
from the office of Sen. Arroyo (February 2013-P47M) and Sen. Pia
Cayetano (January 2013-P50M). The 24th senator then, Benigno S.
Aquino Ill, was already President.
31. Due to the controversy generated by the DAP, petitioners
filed the instant action questioning its validity.
32. Can the President of the Philippines commandeer the
savings of cabinet ministries and agencies of government, pool these
into a single fund and dispense the money in any way he pleases,
without a law authorized by Congress?
33. The answer is No. Section 29 (1 ), Article VI of the
1987 Constitution provides:
" (1) No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in
pursuance of an appropriation made by law".
34. National Budget Circular No. 561 is not a law. It cannot
supersede the General Appropriations Act duly approved by the
Legislative.
9
350 Respondents have claimed that their action is in
accordance with Section 25 (5) of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution"
The said provision states:
"No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of
appropriations: however, the President, the President of the
Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional
Commissions 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""
360 While respondents have claimed that the withdrawn funds
under the DAP are savings which had been realigned, the truth is that
they are not savings at alL There tan be no savings in the middle of
a fiscal year, especially if the projects or programs for which these
funds were allocated by law have not been completed, discontinued
or abandoned"
370 It is therefore evident that respondents acted in blatant
defiance of the Constitution and the General Appropriations Act
which provides that they are to augment existing programs and
projects of other agencies and Fund priority programs and projects
not considered in the 2012 budget but expected to be started or
implemented within the current year.
38. The creation of the DAP to fund new budget items is
unconstitutional because the law limits the president to realign
s v ~ n g s only in existing budget items"
390 Moreover, the DAP violates Section 25, Article VI of the
Constitution, which prohibits the transfer of appropriations"
400 Worse, the manryer of distributing the DAP violates the
equal protection clause of the Constitution.
41 0 The DAP is more than the ordinary pork barreL While
ordinary pork barrels are provided by law, the DAP is not found in any
law but came as a result of the arbitrary desire of the President
420 The questioned issuance must therefore be declared null
and void for being unconstitutionaL
LEGAL STANDING TO FILE
THE INSTANT SUIT
10
Petitioners have the locus standi to file the instant Petition.
In the case of Randolph David, et. al., vs. Pres. Gloria
Macapagal Arroyo, et. al., G.R. No. 171396, March 3, 2006, this
Honorable Court laid down the following guidelines in determining
legal standing to file a case:
"By way of summary, the following rules may be culled from
the cases decided by this Court. Taxpayers, voters,
concerned citizens, and legislators may be accorded standing
to sue, provided that the following requirements are met:
(1} the cases involve constitutional issues;
(2) for taxpayers, there must be a claim of illegal
disbursement of public funds or that the tax measure
is unconstitutional;
(3) for voters, there must be a showing of obvious interest
in the validity of the election law in question;
(4) for concerned citizens, there must be a shoWing that
the issues raised are of transcendental importance
which must be settled early; and
(5) for legislators, there must be a claim that the official
action complained of infringes upon their prerogatives
as legislators."
In the instant case, there is no question that constitutional
issues are involved.
Second, individual petitioners are filing this case as taxpayers,
under the claim of illegal disbursement of public funds.
Third, the DAP came from the savings of agencies which by
law was supposed to be the source of the employees' benefits and
also from the unreleased personnel services appropriations. This has
affected the promotion and hiring of additional personnel and
regularization of contractual employees in government. As the
biggest organization of employees in the government sector,
petitioner COURAGE is negatively affected by the DAP.
Fourth, the issues involved in this Petition are of transcendental
importance the early settlement of which is imperative.
There is thus no dispute that they are clothed with the legal
standing to file the present case.
11
GROUNDS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF THE PETITION
The Disbursement Acceleration Program under National
Budget Circular No. 541 of the DBM violates the 1987 Constitution.
THE DISBURSEMENT ACCELERATION
PROGRAM UNDER N T I O N ~ L BUDGET
CIRCULAR 541 OF THE DEPT. OF BUDGET
AND MANAGEMENT VIOLATES .
SECTION 29 (1 ), ARTICLE VI OF THE
1987 CONSTITUTION.
PROGRAM UNDER NATIONAL BUDGET
AND MANAGEMENT IS VIOLATIVE OF
SECTION 27, ARTICLE VI OF THE
1987 CONSTITUTION.
m
SECTION 24, ARTICLE VI OF THE
1987 CONSTITUTION.
IV
AND MANAGEMENT IS VIOLATIVE OF SECTION 1
ARTICLE Ill, THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
12
OF THE OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.
ARGUMENT
PROGRAM UNDERNATIONAL BUDGET
.AND MANAGEMENT VIOLATES SECTION 29 (1),
ARTICLE VI OF THE
1987 CONSTITUTION.
1.1. Sec. 29 (1 ), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides :
"No money shalf be paid out of the . Treasury except in
pursuance of an appropriation made by law".
1.2. An appropriation bill is one the primary and specific purpose of
which is to authorize the release of funds from the public treasury
(Bengzon vs. Secretary of Justice, 229 US 410).
1.3. As provided in the 1987 Constitution, Congress alone can
authorize the expenditure of public funds through its power to
appropriate. The power granted to Congress to appropriate carries
with it the power to specify not just the amount that may be spent but
also the purpose for which it may be spent.
1.4. According to DBM in its website, the DAP is a stimulus
package" under the AQUINO administration. It was approved by the
President on October 12, 2011 upon the recommendation of the
Development Budget Coordination Committee (DBCC) and the
Cabinet Clusters.
1.5. Yet, while being peddled as a stimulus package, the DAP is
actually an appropriation which seeks to set aside public funds for
public use.
1.6. Thus, there should be a law for the DAP to be paid out of the
Treasury.
13
1.7. Is there any appropriation law mandating the DAP?
1.8. Unfortunately, there is none.
1.9. As discussed in the DBM website, the justification for the
creation and implementation of the DAP are (1) Sec. 25(5), Art. VI of
the 1987 Constitution, (2) Sec. 49 and 38, Chapter 5, Book VI of
Executive Order No. 292, (3) "use of savings" provisions found in the
General Appropriation Acts for Fiscal Years 2011, 2012 and 2013.
1.1 0. None of the above, however, authorizes the release of the DAP
out of the public treasury by way of an appropriation .
..
1.11. No appropriation law was enacted by Congress creating DAP.
The cited provisions do not amount to an appropriation law, but
merely a futile and belated attempt to justify an illegal appropriation
and disbursement of public funds and usurpation of the legislative's
power to appropriate public funds.
1.12. As a matter of fact, the only laws mentioned in the DBM
Website are the General Appropriations Act of 2011, 2012 and 2013.
However, nowhere in the said legislations is there any mention of
the DAP.
1.13. The GAA for 2011, 2012 and 2013 make no mention of the
DAP at all.
1.14. Even Circular No. 541 itself is not a law. It cannot amend or
supersede the General Appropriations Act.
1.15. It follows that the DAP as contained in Circular No. 541 of the
DBM is violative of the Article VI, Section 29 (1) of the 1987
Constitution.
1.16. it must therefore be declared unconstitutional.
II
ARTICLE VI, SECTION 27 OF THE 1987
CONSTITUTION.
2.1 . Respondents have of course claimed that their action is in
14
accordance with Section 25 (5) of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
2.2. The said provision states :
"No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of
appropriations: however, the President, the President of the
Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional
Commissions 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."
2.3. . The above provision has authorized the branches of
government to the augment any item for their respective offices in
the general appropriation law subject to several qualifications.
2.4. First, there must be savings in other items.
2.5. Second, the savings must come from other items in their
respective appropriation.
2.6. Third, the authorization must come from law.
2.7. In the case at bar, there is no savings from which the
augmentation may be effected.
2.8. Section 27, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides:
(1) "Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a
law, be presented to the President. If he approves the same
he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and return the
same with his objections to the House where it originated,
which shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and
proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-
thirds of all the Members of such House shaft agree to pass
the bill, it shalf be sent, together with the objections, to the
other House by which it shalf likewise be reconsidered, and if
approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House, it
shall become a law. In aff such cases, the votes of each
House shall be determined by yeas or nays, and the names
of the Members voting for or against shall be entered in its
Journal. The President shall communicate his veto of any bill
to the House where it originated within thirty days after the
date of receipt thereof, otherwise, it shall become a law as if
he had signed it".
15
(2) "The President shall have the power to veto any particular
item or items in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but the
veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does not
object".
2.9. This is because no part of a fund appropriated for a fiscal
year can be deemed as savings before the end of that fiscal year.
2.10. When Congress allocated funds for Fiscal Year 2012,
Congress intended that these funds be available for spending in a
particular budgetary item for the entire year of 2012.
2.11. There can be no savings before'the end of the fiscal year
for which appropriations were made by Congress, otherwise that
would be tantamount to a presidential amendment of the
appropriations law or vetoing an item in the GAA unilaterally without
giving Congress the opportunity to override that veto.
2.12. Respondents failed to notice that even the law they cite to
define savings does not grant legitimacy to NBC Circular No. 541
and DAP. They cite Section 54 of RA 10155 or the General
Appropriations Act of 2012 as support, when on the contrary it
provides that :
"Savings refer to portions or balances of any programmed
appropriation in this Act free from any obligation or
encumbrance which are: (i) stiff available after the completion or
final discontinuance or abandonment of the work, activity or
purpose for which the appropriation is authorized; xxx ; and (iii)
from appropriations balances realized from the implementation
of measures resulting in improved systems and efficiencies and
thus enabled agencies to meet and deliver the required or
planned targets, programs and services approved in this Act at
a lesser cost. "
2.13. For a portion of any programmed appropriation to be
considered as savings, the said portion or balance must be still
available after the completion or final discontinuance or abandonment
of the activity for which the appropriation is authorized.
2.14. Is the activity or work for which the appropriation has
been authorized completed or finally discontinued so that the portion
of the appropriation may be considered savings? There is no
showing to this effect.
16
2.15. Since respondents admit that the withdrawn funds came
from slow moving projects by under spending agencies, there is no
way for the projects from which these realigned funds were withdrawn
to be considered as "completed, discontinued with finality and
abandoned."
2.16. In fact, the Circular allows the funds to be reissued to the
"original program or project from which it was withdrawn" which
means that the said program or project has not been completed or
abandoned.
2.17. There is no way therefore, for a portion of the appropriation to
be considered as savings as we have previously shown.
2.18. Moreover, Section 39 and 49 Chapter 5 Book VI of EO 292
likewise provided the limit with respect to the use of savings to certain
activities.
2.19. Thus, Section 39 provides:
"Section 39. Authority to Use Savings in Appropriations to
Cover Deficits. - Except as otherwise provided in the General
Appropriations Act, any savings in the regular appropriations
authorized in the General Appropriations Act for programs and
projects of any department, office or agency, may, with the
approval of the President, be used to cover a deficit in any other
item of the regular appropriations: provided, that the creation of
new positions or increase of salaries shall not be allowed to be
funded from budgetary savings except when specifically
authorized by law: provided, further, that whenever authorized
positions are transferred from one program or project to another
within the same department, office or agency, the corresponding
amounts appropriated for personal services are also deemed
transferred, without, however increasing the total outlay for
personal services of the department, office or agency
concerned".
2.20. Section 49 on the other hand provides:
" Section 49. Authority to Use Savings for Certain Purposes. -
Savings in the appropriations provided in the General
Appropriations Act may be used for the settlement of the
following obligations incurred during a current fiscal year or
previous fiscal years as may be approved by Secretary in
accordance with rules and procedures as may be approved by
the President:
17
(1) Claims of officials, employees and laborers who died or were
injured in line of duty, including burial expenses as authorized
under existing law;
(2) Commutation of terminal leaves of employees due to
retirement, resignation or separation from the service through
no fault of their own in accordance with the provisions of
existing law, including unpaid claims for commutation of
maternity leave of absence;
(3) Payment of retirement gratuities or separation pay of
employees separated from the service due to government
reorganization;
(4) Payment of salaries of employees who have been suspended
or dismissed as a result of administrative or disciplinary
action, or separated from the service through no fault of their
own and who have been subsequently exonerated and
reinstated by virtue of decisions of competent authority;
(5) Cash awards to deserving officials and employees tn
accordance with civil service law;
(6) Salary adjustments of officials and employees as a result of
classification action under, and implementation of, the
provisions of the Compensation and Position Classification
Act, including positions embraced under the Career
Executive Service;
(7) Peso support to any undertaking that may be entered into by
the government with international organizations, including
administrative and other incidental expenses;
(8) Covering any deficiency in peso counterpart fund
commitments for foreign assisted projects, as may be
approved by the President;
(9) Priority activities that will promote the economic well being of
the nation, including food production, agrarian reform, energy
development, disaster relief, and rehabilitation.
(10) Repair, improvement and renovation of government
buildings and infrastructure and other capital assets damaged
by natural calamities;
(11) Expenses in connection with official participation in trade
fairs, civic parades, celebrations, athletic competitions and
cultural activities, and payment of expenses for the
celebration of regular or special official holidays;
18
(12) Payment of obligations of the government or any of its
departments or agencies as a result of final judgment of the
Courts; and
(13) Payment of valid prior year's obligations of government
agencies with any other government office or agency,
including government-owned or contra/fed corporations.
2.21. As the General Appropriations Law already provides for
the items for which savings may be utilized, respondents, by adopting
the DAP, clearly arrogated unto themselves the functions of the law.
2.22. On another point, it must be stressed that the Constitution
prohibits the realigning funds to items not found in the General
appropriations law.
2.23. The 1987 Constitution only allows the realignment of
funds to "augment any item in the general appropriations law".
2.24. This absolutely prohibits the passing of a law, much less
a DBM circular, that will allow the president to realign savings to any
item not found in the budget
2.25. Even "augmentation" as defined by Executive Order 292
(Administrative Code), the General Appropriations Act and the DBM
is limited to existing projects and programs found in the GAA.
2.26. Section 54 of RA 10155 (2012 GAA) defines
augmentation thus:
XXX
"Sec. 54. Meaning of Savings and Augmentation.
Augmentation implies the existence in this Act of a program,
activity, or project with an appropriation, which upon
implementation or subsequent evaluation of needed resources,
is determined to be deficient. In no case shall a non-existent
program, activity, or project, be funded by augmentation from
savings or by the use of appropriations otherwise authorized in
this Act."
2.27. It is claimed by former Budget Secretary Benjamin Diokno
that the DAP was used to fund new budget items such as the P6.5
billion assistance to local government units and P1.8 billion
19
assistance to the Cordillera People's Liberation Army and the Moro
National Liberation Front (MNLF).
2.28. Having been used for purposes not found in the existing
projects and programs contained in the General Appropriations Law,
this makes the DAP doubly constitutionally defective.
m
ARTICLE VI, SECTION 24 OF THE 1987
CONSTITUTION.
3.1. Circular No. 541 of the DBM authorizes the funding "priority
programs and projects not considered in the 2012 budget but
expected to be started or implemented during the fiscal year." (5.7.3,
NBC 541}
3.2. Clearly, the DAP is an appropriation of public funds by
the Executive.
3.3. The same did not did not originate from the House of
Representatives as mandated by Sec. 24, Art. VI of the 1987
Constitution.
3.4. We quote this provision :
"All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing
the increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and
private bills shafl originate exclusively in the House of
Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with
amendments."
3.5. It is crystal-clear that all appropriation bills must originate
exclusively in the House of Representatives.
3.6. While the Constitution allows the Senate to participate in
its enactment, the latter's role has been limited to amending the said
bill.
20
3.7. In the case of the DAP, however, the same did not"'
originate from the House of Representatives.
3.8. It came entirely from the Executive or the Office of the
President.
3.9. Clearly, it violated the constitutional provision which
requires it to emanate from the House of Representative.
IV
AND MANAGEMENT IS VIOLATIVE OF SECTION I,
ARTICLE Ill, THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
OF THE OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.
4.1. Article Ill of the 1987 Constitution provides :
"Section 1. No person shalf be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law, nor shall any person be
denied the equal protection of the laws."
4.2. The second part of the above provision is known as the
"equal . protection of laws" clause.
4.3. By equal protection of laws means that laws must be
applied equally and it is erroneous to give preference to one person
or class of persons over another.
4.4. According to a long line of decisions by this Honorable
Court, equal protection simply requires that all persons or things
similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred
and responsibilities imposed. (Association of Small Landowners in
the Philippines v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 7842, July
14, 1989, 175 SCRA 343, 375).
4.5. The purpose of the equal protection clause is to secure
every person within a state's jurisdiction against intentional and
arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by the express terms of
a statue or by its improper execution through the state's duly
constituted authorities (Edward Valves, Inc. v. Wake Country, 343
N.C. 426 cited in Am. Jur. 2d, Vol. 16 (b), p. 303).
21
4.6. In other words, the concept of equal justice under the law
requires the state to govern impartially, and it may not draw
distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are
irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective (Lehr v. Robertson,
463 US 248, 103 cited in Am. Jur. 2d, Vol. 16 (b), p. 303).
4.7. The equal protection clause is aimed at all official state
actions, not just those of the legislature (See Columbus Bd. of Ed. v.
Penick, 443 US 449 cited Am.Jur. 2d, Vol. 16 (b), pp. 316-317).
4.8. Its inhibitions cover all the departments of the government
including the political and executive departments, and extend to all
actions of a state denying equal protectipn of the laws, through
whatever agency or whatever guise is taken (See Lombard v. State of
La., 373 US 267 cited in Am, Jur. 2d, Vol. 16 (b), p. 316).
4.9. In the case at bar, respondents admitted releasing the
following DAP to the following Senators:
Antonio Trillanes (October 2012-P50M)
Manuel Villar (October 2012-P50M)
Ramon Revilla (October 2012-P50M)
Francis Pangilinan (October 2012-P30M)
Loren Legarda (October 2012-P50M)
Lito Lapid (October 2012-P50M)
Jinggoy Estrada (October 2012-P50M)
Alan Cayetano (October 2012-P50M)
Edgardo Angara (October 2012-P50M)
Ralph Recto (October 2012-P23 December 2012-P27M)
Koko Pimentel (October 2012-P25.5M; November 2012-P5M;
December 2012-P15M)
Tito Sotto (October 2012-P11 M; November 2012-P39M)
Teofisto Guingona (October 2012-P35M; December 2012-P9M)
Serge Osmena (December 2012-P50M)
Then-Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile (Dec. 2012-
P92M)
President Frank Dri!on (December 2012-P100M).
4.1 0. No releases were made in 2012 to Senators Ping Lacson,
Joker Arroyo, Pia Cayetano, Bongbong Marcos and Miriam Defensor-
Santiago.
4.11. As to why the senators were treated differently as regard
the amount of the DAP that they received , with some receiving this
much and some receiving nothing at all, respondents failed to give a
credible explanation.
22
4.12. While the equal protection clause allows classification, such
classification to be valid must pass the test of reasonableness.
4.13. The test has four requisites: (1) The classification rests on
substantial distinctions; (2) It is germane to the purpose of the law; (3)
It is not limited to existing conditions only; and (4) It applies equally to
all members of the same class (Beltran v. Secretary of Health, 512
Phil560).
4.14. There is no showing that respondents made use of
reasonable classification in distributing the DAP.
4.15. Petitioners thus submit that the same is violative of the
equal protection clause of the 1987 Constitution.
GROUNDS FOR ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER ANDIOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
1. Petitioners also pray for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction and/or a Temporary Restraining Order to enjoin
Respondents from implementing the DAP while the instant Petition is
pending.
2. The same is necessary to protect the substantive rights and
interests of petitioners . If the DAP will continue to be implemented,
the rights of the petitioners would be violated such that there exists
an extreme necessity for the Honorable Court to issue a TRO or a
preliminary injunction.
3. After all, public funds have already been disbursed much to
the prejudice of the rights of petitioners. According to the DBM, a
total of P142.23 billion has beeh spent during the current year
under the DAP, with P83.53 billion spent in 2011 and another P 58.7
billion in 2012.
4. These huge amounts were spent on budgetary items
many of which were not in the 2011 or 2012 GAA passed by
Congress. its regular budget of P11.8 Billion.
5. Petitioners were able to show that they are entitled to the
issuance of an injunctive relief for having complied with the
requirement set forth by the Rules, to wit: (a) the invasion of right
sought to be protected is material and substantial; (b) the right of the
complainant is clear and unmistakable; and (c) there is an urgent and
paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.
23
6. Petitioners' prayer for a temporary restraining order and a writ
of preliminary injunction to enjoin respondents from releasing further
funds under the DAP pending resolution of this case must be granted.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioners pray for the
following:
(1) That the Honorable Court give due course to this Petition ;
(2) That a temporary restraining orcjer and/or a preliminary
injunction be issued to restrain the respondents from
implementing the Disbursement Acceleration Program under
the National Budget Circular No. 541 while this Petition is
pending;
(3) That after due proceedings, the Disbursement Acceleration
Program under the National Budget Circular No. 541 of the
Department of Budget and Management be declared null
and void.
OTHER RELIEFS just and equitable under the circumstances are
also prayed for.
Quezon City for Manila;
October 25, 2013.
PRo-LABOR I.6AL ASSISTANCE. CIDITf:R
NO. 33-B . RODRIGUEZ SR. AVENUE, QUEZON CITY
Counsel for the Petitioners
By:
~ _ L L - ~ t _ , ~ r r
Ri:MIG:W D. SALADERO JR.
Roll No. 33489
IBP OR No. 882450
January 7, 2013; Rizal
PTR No. 9261023
January 2, 2013, Baras, Rizal
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0018772
April 24, 2013
Tel. No. 413-45-61
-and -
24
<
--J
/7/'
NOEL V.NERI
Roll No. 47168
PTR D. 7612462/1-07-13/Quezon City
IBP No. 05613/Lifetime/Quezon City
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0016234/4-10-13
By:

VICENTEJAIME . OP,ACIO
Roll No. 59418
IBP No. 894766/1-31-13/Manila III
PTR No. 7612463/1-7-13/Quezon City
MCLE No. IV-001878/4-23-13
Copy Furnished By Reg. Mail
Due to the Distance and the Lack
Of Available Messenger To Effect
Personal Service :
Hon. Benigno Simeon Aquino III
Office of the President
Malacanang Palace, J.P. Laurel Street
San Miguel, Manila
Hon. Pacquito Ochoa Jr.
Office of the Executive Secretary
Malacanang Palace, J. P. Laurel Street
San Miguel, Manila
Hon. Florencio Abad
Department of Budget and Management
Gen. Solano Street, San Miguel
Manila
EXPLANATION
25
The service of copies of the instant Petition is made through registered mail, as
personal service thereof cannot be made due to distance and lack of available
personnel. This explanation is made pursuant to Rule 13, Section 11 of the Rules
of Court.
)J_rl] J"r. .
RE!'Jfl0 D. JR.
25
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
WE, SANTIAGO DASMARINAS JR., ROSALINDA NARTATES, MANUEL BACLAGON, ANTONIA
PASCUAl, ALBERT MAGALANG, and MARCIAL ARABA, after being duly sworn in accordance with
law, depose and say;
That we are the petitioners in the instant case;
That we have read the foregoing Petition;
That we have read the same and found its content true and correct of our own knowledge
and based on authentic documents;
That we have not filed any similar complaint or case t;>efore the Supreme Court, Court of
Appeals, or any other body, agency, or tribunal; and we are "not aware of any similar complaint or
case pending before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any other body, agency, or tribunal;
that in case we become aware of such similar case, we undertake to inform this Honorable Office
within five days from such knowledge.

ROSALINDA NARTATES,
Affiant 1Vt1A H> 'II' 11Cl7S

MANUEL BACLAGON ANTONIA PASCUAL
Affiant lJK1<10 /[)If CJ<ItJ,:U!3 Affiant .ORH J/) #
3
0:
AlBE T
Affiant lf!niJ l)fiJR II) -It 055- '0!0
. ill 4 Aln '211
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO: before me tn/JI29W3Jay of October 2013, here at Quezon
City. Affiants exhibited to me their respective government issued I.D.s written below their
names to prove their identities.
Doc. No. /-tf:
Page
Book
Series of 2013
Um-H :53, 2C14.
P'fR iiii :_, ;;-;r; 1913
!nP Nc. < >u:; 12-512
TO
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
Malacanang, Manila
July 18, 2012
: All Heads of Departments/ Agencies/State Universities and Colleges and
other Offices of the National Government, Budget and Planning Officers;
Heads of Accounting Units and All Others Concerned
SUBJECT : Adoption of Operational Efficiency Measure - Withdrawal of
Agencies' Unobligated Allotments as of June 30, 2012
1.0 Rationale
The DBM, as mandated by Executive Order (EO) No. 292 (Administrative Code
of 1987), periodically reviews and evaluates the departments/agencies'
efficiency and effectiveness in utilizing budgeted funds for the delivery of
services and production of goods, consistent with the government's priorities.
In the event that a measure is necessary to further improve the operational
efficiency of the government, the President is authorized to suspend or stop
further use of funds allotted for any agency or expenditure authorized in the
General Appropriations Act. Withdrawal and pooling of unutilized allotment
releases can be effected by DBM based on authority of the President, as
rnandated under Sections 38 and 39, Chapter 5, Book VI of EO 292.
For the first five months of 2012, the National Government has not met its
spending targets. In order to accelerate spending and sustain the fiscal targets
during the year, expenditure measures have to be implemented to optimize the
utilization of available resources.
Departments/agencies have registered low spending levels, in terms of
obligations and disbursements per initial review of their 2012 performance. To
enhance agencies' performance, the DBM conducts continuous consultation
meetings and/or send call-up letters, requesting them to identify slow-moving
programs/projects and the factors/issues affecting their performance (both
pertaining to internal and those which are outside the agencies'
spheres of control). Also, they are asked to formulate strategies and
improvement plans for the rest of 2012.
Notwithstanding these initiatives, some departments/agencies have continued
to post low obligation levels as of end of first semester, thus __
substantial unobligated allotments. I l? J
! I
I I
In line with this, the President, per directive dated June 27, 2012 n:: u:
the withdrawal of unobligated allotments of agencies with low EJlf t ;3 ''
obligations as of June 30, 2012, both for continuing and current allotmeltl;ts. c.i
This measure will allow the maximum utilization of available allotments to C '"
1
and undertake other priority expenditures of the national government. l .l"-l-
lw
1--'-l
L 1 z.
,- , ! d'
'{ --'/, ' cr: .:.1
.''.i"' ,I w. c:c
i-!-; 1 () c)
: -:------- - "
--" '
2.0 Purpose
2.1 To provide the conditions and parameters on the withdrawal of
unobligated allotments of agencies as of June 30, 2012 to fund priority
and/or fast-moving programs/projects of the national government;
2.2 To prescribe the reports and documents to be used as bases on the
withdrawal of said unobligated allotments; and
2.3 To provide guidelines in the utilization or reallocation of the withdrawn
allotments.
3.0 Coverage
3.1 These guidelines shall cover the withdrawal of unobligated allotments as
of June 30, 2012 of all national government agencies (NGAs) charged
against FY 2011 Continuing Appropriation (R.A. No. 10147) and FY 2012
Current Appropriation (R.A. No. 10155), pertainjng to:
3.1.1 Capital Outlays (CO);
3.1.2 Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE) related to the
implementation of programs and projects, as well as capitalized
MOOE; and
3.1.3 Personal Services corresponding to unutilized pension benefits
declared as savings by the agencies concerned based on their
updated/validated list of pensioners.
3.2 The withdrawal of unobligated allotments may cover the identified
programs, projects and activities of the departments/agencies reflected in
the DBM list shown as Annex A or specific programs and projects as may
be identified by the agencies.
4.0 Exemption
These guidelines shall not apply to the following:
4.1 NGAs
t .
4.1.1 Constitutional Offices/Fiscal Autonomy Group, granted fiscal
autonqmy under the Philippine Constitution; and
4.1.2 State Universities and Colleges, adopting the Normative Funding
allocation scheme i.e., distribution of a predetermined budget
ceiling.
!2 Fund sources

.

;s:,
,__. ;
-n \
>..-{)
IT\ j
C
1
i
\
"'}:,< l,
4.2.1 Personal Services other than pension benefits;
., 1
;-; __
.-.
1
C:
4.2.2 MOOE items earmarked for specific purposes or subject to
realignment conditions per General Provisions of the GAA:

l <\.-'
.............
Confidential and Intelligence Fund;
Savings from Traveling, Communication, Transportation and
Delivery, Repair and Maintenance, Supplies and Materials and
Utility which shall be used for the grant of Collective Negotiation
Agreement incentive benefit;
Savings from mandatory expenditures which can be realigned
only in the last quarter after taking into consideration the
agency's full year requirements, i.e., Petroleum, Oil and
Lubricants, Water, Illumination, Power Services, Telephone,
other Communication Services and Rent
4.2.3 Foreign-Assisted Projects (loan proceeds and peso counterpart);
4.2.4 Special Purpose Funds such as: E-Government Fund, International
Commitments Fund, PAMANA, Priority Development Assistance
Fund, Calamity Fund, Budgetary Support to GOCCs and Allocation
to LGUs, among others;
4.2.5 Quick Response Funds; and
4.2.6 Automatic Appropriations i.e., Retirement Life Insurance Premium
and Special Accounts in the General Fund.
5.0 Guidelines
5.1 National government agencies shall continue to undertake procurement
activities notwithstanding the implementation of the policy of withdrawal
of unobligated allotments until the end of the third quarter, FY 2012.
Even without the allotments, the agency shall proceed in undertaking the
procurement processes (i.e., procurement planning up to the conduct of
bidding but short of awarding of contract) pursuant to GPPB Circular Nos.
02-2008 and 01-2009 and DBM Circular Letter No. 2010-9.
5.2 For the purpose of determining the amount of unobligated allotments that
shall be withdrawn, all departments/agencies/operating units (OUs) shall
submit to DBM not later than July 30, 2012, the following budget
accountability reports as of June 30, 2012:
Statement of Allotments, Obligations and Balances (SAOB);
Financial Report of Operations (FRO); and

Physical Report of Operations .
5.3 In the absence of the June 30, 2012 reports cited under item 5.2 of this
Circular, the agency's latest report available shall be used by DBM as basis
for withdrawal of allotment. The DBM shall compute/approximate the
agency's obligation level as of June 30 to derive its unobligated allotments
as of same period. Example: If the March 31 SAOB or FRO reflects actual
obligations of P SOOM then the June 30 obligation level -
to P1,600 M (i.e., PSOO M X 2 quarters). I .I!, li::U 'RL 1:: vOP\
I . ;:Jc( ... ...y ,. . ..,. , ..
3 J ORLf\PZ:'Jfv1._ fv];:Q;[)J\Rf\OG
1 p_,:-:COrC!s

AS
uf G! [):
5.4 All released allotments in FY 2011 charged against R.A. No. 10147 which
remained unobligated as of June 30, 2012 shall be immediately
considered for withdrawal. This policy is based on the following
considerations:
5.4.1 The departments/agencies' approved priority programs and projects
are assumed to be implementation-ready and doable during the
given fiscal year; and
5.4.2 The practice of having substantial carryover appropriations may
imply that the agency has a slower-than-programmed
implementation capacity or agency tends to implement projects
within a two-year timeframe.
5.5 Consistent with the President's directive, the DBM shall, based on
evaluation of the reports cited above and results of consultations with the
departments/agencies, withdraw the unobligated allotments as of June 30,
2012 through issuance of negative Special Allotment Release Orders
(SAROs).
5.6 DBM shall prepare and submit to the President, a report on the magnitude
of withdrawn allotments. The report shall highlight the agencies which
failed to submit the June 30 reports required under this Circular.
5.7 The withdrawn allotments may be:
5.7.1 Reissued for the original programs and projects of the
agencies/OUs concerned, from which the allotments were
withdrawn;
5.7.2 Realigned to cover additional funding for other existing programs
and projects of the agency/OU; or
5.7.3 Used to augment existing programs and projects of any agency
and to fund priority programs and projects not considered in the
2012 budget but expected to be started or implemented during the
current year.
5.8 For items 5.7.1 and 5.7.2 above, agencies/OUs concerned may submit to
DBM a Special Budget Request (SBR), supported with the following:
5.8.1 Physical and Financial Plan (PFP);
5.8.2 Monthly Cash Program (MCP); and
5.8.3 Proof that the project/activity has started the procurement
processes i.e., Proof of Posting and/or Advertisement of the
Invitation to Bid. - -
CE:RTIFIED TRlJE-COPY-----,
"I
;,'i
I
'
I
!
5.9 The deadline for submission of requestjs pertaining to these categories
shall be until the end of the third quarter i.e., September 30, 2012.
After said cut-off date, the withdrawn allotments shall be pooled and form
part of the overall savings of the national government.
5.10 Utilization of the consolidated withdrawn allotments for other priority
programs and projects as cited under item 5.7.3 of this Circular, shall be
subject to approval of the President. Based on the approval of the
President, DBM shall issue the SARO to cover the approved priority
expenditures subject to submission by the agency/OU concerned of the
SBR and supported with PFP and MCP.
5.11 It is understood that all releases to be made out of the withdrawn
allotments (both 2011 and 2012 unobligated allotments) shall be within
the approved Expenditure Program level of the national government for
the current year. The SAROs to be issued shall properly disclose the
appropriation source of the release to determine the extent of allotment
validity, as follows:
For charges under R.A. 10147 - allotments shall be valid up to
December 31, 2012; and
For charges under R.A. 10155 - allotments shall be valid up to
December 31, 2013.
5.12 Timely compliance with the submission of existing BARs and other
reportorial requirements is reiterated for monitoring purposes.
6. 0 Effectivity
This circular shall take effect immediately.
'
q z: z c )1.......-
FLORENCIO B. ABAD
Secretary
Republic of the Philippines)
Quezon City )
X--- ---- - --- - ----- -- --X.
I, ROSALINDA R. NARTATES, of legal age, with address at No. 112 Scout Rallos
Street, Quezon City, after being duly sworn in accordance with law, depose and
say:
1. That I am the Secretary General of the Confederation for the Unity,
Recognition and Advancement of Government Employees (COURAGE), the
national center of labor unions in the public sector;
2. That I do certify that on October 3, 2013 at session assembled, the National
Executive Committee of COURAGE issued the following Resolution :
"BE IT RESOLVED AS IT IS HEREIBY RIESOlVED, that National Executive Committee hereby
authorize Mr. Santiago Y. Dasmarinas Jr ... COUflAGE National Vice-President, to act as the
official representative of COURAGE in the ftling and preparation of the necessary
pleadings and documents, including the verification and certification on non-forum
shopping relative thereto, in connection with the intended petition before the Supreme
Court concerning the constitutionality and legality of the Disbursement Acceleration
Program (DAP) as embodied in National Buclget Circular No. 541 dated July 18, 2.012
issued by the Department of Budget and Management."
3. That I am executing this Affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing.
11\1 WITNESS HEREOF, I hereuntoaffix my signature this 23'd day of October
2013 here at Quezon City.
here at _____ _

ROSALINDA R. NARTATES
COURAGE
Confederation for Unity, Recognition and Adlvanccment of Govemment Employees
No. 112 Scout Rallos Street, Brgy. Sacred Heart Quezon City
NEC RESOLUTION No. W series of ?..013
WHEREAS, the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) as embodied in National Budget
Circular No. 541 dated July 18, 2012 issued by the Department of Budget and Management
has stirred so much public attention and controversy;
. WHEREAS, the DAP is widely perceived to be detrimental to the interest of government
employees since it is a form of pork barrel, aside from the fact that it can reduce the
economic benefits which members of public unions rnay negotiate in their Collective
Negotiation Agreement (CNA );
WHEREAS, it is thus imperative that COURAGE files the appropriate action before the
Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality or legality of the DAP;
WHEREAS, to facilitate the filing of such action, there is a need for COURAGE to authorize Mr.
Santiago Dasmarinas, its National Vice-President, to act as its duly authorized representative for
the petition and to prepare and accomplish the necessary pleadings or documents relative
thereto, including the verification and certification on non-forum shopping of the same;
NOW WHEREFORE, the NEC hereby resolves to authorize Mr. Santiago Y. Dasmarinas Jr.,
COURAGE National 1" Vice-President, to act as the official representative of COURAGE in the
filing and preparation of the necessary pleadings and documents, including the verification and
certification on non-forum shopping relative thereto, in connection with the intended petition
before the Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality and legality of the Disbursement
Acceleration Program.(DAP) as embodied in National Budget Circular No. 541 dated July 18,
2012 issued by the Department of Budget and Management.
October 3, 2013;
Quezon City.
Q
FERDINAND R. GAITE
NATIONAL PRESIDENT

SECRETARY GENERAL

NEC MEMBER
ATIY. GLEN ROMANO
DEP. SECRETARY GENERI\L
JONEL OSlO
NEC MEMBER

2NVICE PRESIDENT
MARCif;" ARABA
NEC MEMBER
JOHN WILLIAM LUCERO
NEC MEMBER
Quezon City )
X-- ---- -- ----- ------ --X.
say:.
Executive Committee of COURAGE issued the following Resolution :
"BE IT RESOlVED AS IT IS HEREilY RESOLVED, that National Executive Committee hereby
authorize Mr. Santiago Y. Dasmarinas Jr., COUHAGE National Vice-President, to act as the
official representative of COURAGE in the filing and preparation of the necessary
Program (DAP) as embodied in National Budget Circular No. 541 dated July 18, 2012
11\1 WITNESS HEREOF, I hereunto affix my signature this 23'd day of October
20B here at Quezon City.

. . 2 9 ocr
2073
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before rne this ____ day
hereat ____________ _
COURAGE
Confederation for Unity, Recognition and Advancement of Government Employees
NEC RESOLUTION No. W series of 2013
WHEREAS, the DAP is widely perceived to be detrimental to the interest of government
economic benefits which members of public unions may negotiate in their Collective
COURAGE Nationall'' Vice-President, to act as the official representative of COURAGE in the
Acceleration Program (DAP) as embodied in National BUdget Circular No. 541 dated July 18,
October 3, 2013;
Quezon City.
FERDINAND R. GAITE
NATIONAL PRESIDENT
......-----
~ ~ ~ ~
SECRETARY GENERAL
~
NEC MEMBER
/'
SMAil.'
NT
ATIY. GLEN ROMANO
DEP. SECRETARY GENERAL
JONEL OSlO
NEC MEMBER
R ~
2"
0
VICE PRESIDENT
MARCI!::RABA
NEC MEMBER
JOHN WILLIAM LUCERO
NEC MEMBER
Quezon City )
X- -- - - - - - -- -- ------- --X.
CERIIFICATE
say:
2. That I do certify that on October 3,, 2013 at session assembled, the National
Executive Committee of COURAGE issued the following Resolution:
"BE IT RESOLVED AS IT IS HEREIBY RESOlVED, that National Executive Committee hereby
authorize Mr. Santiago Y. Dasmarinas Jr ... C:OUF\AGE National Vice-President, to act as the
official representative of COURAGE in the filing and preparation of the necessary
11\1 WITNESS HEREOF, I hereunto affix rny signature this 23'd day of October
20B here at Quezon City.

2 9 ocr
2013
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before rne this ____ day 0,.,..-::::::::::,.._,--------
here at
------

NEC RESOlUTION No. 10 series of 2013
COURAGE Nationall" Vice-President, to act as the official representative of COURAGE in the
Acceleration Program (DAP) as embodied in National Budget Circular No. 541 dated July 18,
October 3, 2013;
Quezon City.
FERDINAND R. GAITE
NATIONAL PRESIDENT
......-

SECRETARY GENERAL

NEC MEMBER
ATIY. GLEN ROMANO
JONELOSIO
NEC MEMBER

2ND VICE PRESIDENT
MARCILRABA
NEC MEMBER
JOHN WILLIAM LUCERO
NEC MEMBER
Quezon City )
X--- - -- - - ------ - --- --X.
say:
1. That I am the Secretary General of the C:orrfede.ration for the Unity,
Executive Committee of COURAGE issued the following Resolution:
"BE IT RESOLVED AS IT IS HEREBY RESO!.VED, that National Executive Committee hereby
authorize Mr. Santiago Y. Dasmarinas Jr ... COUf\AGE National Vice-President, to act as the
official representative of COURAGE. in the filing and preparation of the. necessary
Court concerning the constitutionality and le,gality of the Disbursement Acceleration
IN WITNESS HEREOF, I hereunto affix my signature this 23'd day of October
\ e ~ ~ ~
2 9 ocr
2013
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before rne this---- day o:7==------
here at

COlJRAGE
NEC RESOLUTION No. 10 series of 2.013
COURAGE National 1'' Vice-President, to act as the official representative of COURAGE in the
filing and preparation of the necessary pleadings and dotuments, including the verification and
Acceleration Program (DAP) as embodied in National Budget Circular No. 541 dated July 18,
2012 issued by the Department of Budget and Man<>gement.
October 3, 2013.;
Quezon City.
FERDINAND R, GAITE
NATIONAL PRESIDENT
..--

SECRETARY GENERAL
ATIY. GLEN ROMANO
JONEL OSlO
NEC MEMBER

2ND VICE PRESIDENT
MARCit:RABA
MEMBER
JOHN WILLIAM LUCERO
NEC MEMBER
CONSOLIDATED UNION OF EMPLOYEES
NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY NHA Compound Elliptieal Road, Diliman, City TeL No.926-69-0l
X---------------------!(_
+;..
!N \t1TNESS l-ereunlo affhz my sign3ture 1h!s 24'" of October
here at
DEPARTMENT Of' AGRARIAN REFORM
EMPLO'iEEs ASSOCIATION
DAR Compound, Elliptical Road, Diliman, Quezon City
923"7031 to 39 Jo..::;Jl 524. Cdlphm1e Nos. 0917-5623131 0908-82 U920.Q cbrea_ . ..::l>Hl
DAREA
RESOLUTION No. _j2_ Series of 2013
employees since it is a form of pork barrel, aside from the fact that it can reduce the economic
benefits which members of public unions may negotiate in their Collective Negotiation
Agreement (CNA );
WHEREAS, it is thus imperative that DAREA files the appropriate action before the Supreme
Court questioning the constitutionality or legality ofthe DAP;
WHEREAS, to facilitate the filing of such action, there is a need for DAREA to authorize Ms.
Antonia H. Pascual, its National President, to act as its duly authorized representative for the
petition and to prepare and accomplish the necessary pleadings or documents relative thereto,
including the verification and certification on non-forum shopping of the same;
NOW WHEREFORE, the DAREA National Executive Officers hereby resolves to authorize Ms.
Antonia H. Pascual, DAREA National President, to act as the official representative of DAREA in
the filing and preparation of the necessary pleadings and documents, including the verification
and certification on non-forum shopping relative thereto, in connection with the intended
petition before the Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality and legality of the
Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) as embodied in National Budget Circular No. 541
dated July 18, 2012 issued by the Department of Budget and Management.
October 29, 2013;
Quezon City.

ONOFRE V. VALDEZ
National Vice-President

ry
/
LIMirnTH F. BULANON
National Asst. Treasurer
Hrnc,)
LORIA f. ALMMAN
ational Secretary
.
Nr;:;;ONIA
easurer
HERMINIO T. ROMINES (optedto,et;,.,_E0366J
National Auditor
OFELIA E. TRIBIANA
National P.R.O. (Opted to retire-EO 366)
IN UNITY WE DER/YE OUR ST/lN6TH
SOCIAL WELFARE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES
(SWEAP-Central Office Chapter)
2"' Floor Old DSWD Bldg. Batasan Hills, Quezon City
CSC/DOLE Reg. No. 086
Tel/Fax No. 442-0680; 931-81-01 Loc. 229 Email: sweaphil@yahoo.com.ph
Para sa Kawani
1
Para sa Bayan!
Quezon City )
X- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - )(.
SECRETARY'S CERTIFICATE
I, ROLLY D. LAGANGA, of legal age, with address at Department of Social Welfare
and Development, Batsan Hills, Quezon City, after being duly sworn in accordance
with law, depose and say:
1. That I am the Secretary of the SOCIAL WELFARE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
OF THE PHILIPPINES (SWEAP-CO), the rank and file union of the
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT;
2. That I do certify that on October 23, 2013 at session assembled, the meeting
of the Executive Board of the SWEAP-CO issued the following Resolution :
"BE IT RESOLVED AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that Executive Officers and Board of
Directors hereby authorize Mr. Manuel R. Baclagon, SWEAP President, to act as the
official representative of SWEAP in the filing and preparation of the necessary pleadings
and documents, including the verification and certification on non-forum shopping
relative thereto, in connection with the intended petition before the Supreme Court
concerning the constitutionality and legality of the Disbursement Acceleration Program
(DAP) as embodied in National Budget Circular No. 541 dated July 18, 2012 issued by
the Department of Budget and Management."
IN WITNESS HEREOF, I hereunto affix my signature this 23'd day of October
0
4
Nov 2013.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of--------
here aQU.Ezi'J Cnx

Page
Book No.
Series of 20 ...
Notary Public

NotarY i'uhiic
Until Decemh-2;- 01. 2rJ.4
PT!\ N0.

!
JBP No ..
Roll No. :.0\P!Jil
ll!CLi Olmpiiauce l<o.LV.Wtu:71

3
DARE A
DEPARTMENT OF A6RAIUAN REFORM
EMPLO"Y.8 A.SSOCIA TION
DAR Compound, Elliptical Road, Diliman, Quezon City
'i:S-455-0859: 928-7031 to 39 local 524, Cellphooe Nos. O<J 17-562313 l 0908-82 J 1920.!!!!: (brca_ ceutra],'('/yalwo .
Quezon City )
X- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - X.
I, GlORIA P. ALMAZAN, of legal age, with address at DAR Compound, Elliptical
Road, Diliman, Quezon City, after being duly sworn in accordance with law, depose
and say:
1. That I am the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform Employees
Association (DAREA), the rank and file union of Department of Agrarian
Reform;
Executive Officers of DAREA issued the following Resolution :
"BE IT RESOLVED AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that National Executive Officers hereby
authorize Ms. Antonia H. Pascual, DAREA National President, to act as the official
representative of DAREA in the filing and preparation of the necessary pleadings and
documents, including the verification and certification on non-forum shopping relative
thereto, in connection with the intended petition before the Supreme Court concerning
the constitutionality and legality of the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) as
embodied in National Budget Circular No. 541 dated July 18, 2012 issued by the
Department of Budget and Management."
IN WITNESS HEREOF, I hereunto affix my signature this 29
1
h day of October 2013
here at Quezon City.
\
LORIA f. ALMA AN
3 0 0GJ1y2ffl.;;..-----
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this
hereat ____ __ __

IN UNITY WE JJJ!RIV'E OUR STREN6TH
Quezon City )
><--------------------------------><.
SECRETARY'S CERTIFiCATE
I, CLARISSA T. TRESMARIA, of legal age, with address at Visayas Avenue, Quezon
City, after being duly sworn in accordance with law, depose and say:
1. That I am the Secretary of the Environmental Management Bureau Employees
Union (EMBEU);
2. That I do certify that on October 29, 2013' at the session assembled, the
Executive Committee of EMBEU issued the following Resolution :
"BE IT RESOLVED AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that Executive Committee
hereby authorize Mr. Albert A. Magalang, EMBEU President, to act as the
official representative of EMBEU in the filing and preparation of the necessary
pleadings and documents, including the verification and certification on non-
forum shopping relative thereto, in connection with the intended petition before
the Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality and legality of the
Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) as embodied in National Budget
Circular No. 541 dated July 18, 2012 issued by the Department of Budget and
Management."
IN WITNESS HEREOF, I hereunto affix my signature this 29th day of October 2013
here at Quezon City.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 3 D _____ _
here at CBJ'
'l.o .. c. No.$32-V '!
No. ' ..
""Ok 1<'8._ '
.. cs of 20l
,,.,
.;
N0. OJ ;.._;
0;:-_ . .: __ , _:._:_;;,);)
t-5,-, y. f'tD<:tt,_an:> East Q.:c..,
- ,___
KAPISANAN PARA SA KAGAUNGAN NG MGA KAWANI SA MMDA
(KKK-MMDA)
Certificate of Accreditatio No. 778-CSC-DOLE
Quezon City )
X- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - X.
I, Maria Theresa B. Gonzales, of legal age, with address at MMDA, Orense St.,
Guadalupe, Makati after being duly sworn in accordance with law, depose and
say:
1. That I am the Secretary General of the Kapisanan para sa Kagalingan ng mga
Kawani ng Metro Manila Development Authority, the rank and file union of;
2. That I do certify that on October 24, 2013 at session assembled, the
Executive Committee of KKK-MMDA issued the following Resolution :
"BE IT RESOLVED AS iT iS HEREBY RESOLVED, that Executive Committee hereby
authorize Mr. Marcial Araba, KKK-MMDA National President, to act as the official
representative of KKK-MMDA in the filing and preparation of the necessary pleadings and
documents, including the verification and certification on non-forum shopping relative
thereto, in connection with the intended petition before the Supreme Court concerning
the constitutionality and legality of the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) as
embodied in National Budget Circular No. 541 dated July 18, 2012 issued by the
Department of Budget and Management."
IN WITNESS HEREOF, I hereunto affix my signature this 24th day of October
Maria
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 3 0 09ly _____ _
ATTY.
N"t;:tr-v Pi_,'_,

the Philippines)
Quezon ) S.S
1, THERESA SESALDO, of legal age, married, with postal address at Lot 18 Block 4C Phase Ill E-J
Dagat-dagatan Caloocan City:
That I am one of the Staff of COUR,\GE;
That on November 04, 2013, I served a copy of the P'Hil"ION FOR CERTIORARI <illld
PROHiBITION," via registered mail by depositing copies thereof in the post ofF1ce, in a sealed envelope,
plainly addressed to the parties, with instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to the sender
after 10 days undelivered, with registry receipts here attached opposite their names, as follows:
Presi<lellt Benigno Simeon Aquino Ill
Office of the President
Malacanang Palace
Philippine Posta! Corporation
9:49:48 AM
Manila centra! Post Office
Batch NO.'.N033513110413
J.P Laurel Street, San Miguel
Manila
Paqulto Ochoa
Office of the Executive Secretary
Malacanang PaLace
J.P laurel Street, San Miguel
Manila
Fllorendo Abad
Gen. Street, San Miguel
Manila
Sender
COURAGE
Address
118 SCOUT RALLOS BRGY. SACRED
HEART QUEZON CITY
Addressee/eReg,No. Address
PRES. BENIGNO
SIMEON AQUINO III
OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT
R13118612441331
MALACANANG PALACE J,P LAUREL
ST. , SAN MIGUEL , ManJia, Metro
Manlla
MR._ PAQUITO OCHOA MALACANANG PALACE J.P LAUREL
OFFICE OF THE ST. SAN MIGUEL, Manila, Metro
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
R1311S612441337
MR, FLORENCIO ABAD
Amount
iP 100
'P 100
DEPT. OF BUDGET AND GEN. SOLANO ST. , SAN MIGUEL, p 100
MANAGEMENT Manila, Metro Manila
R13118612441343
Total Amount
Total No. of Mails
This serves as your acknowledgement receipt
Thank you come again!
www.phlpost.com
" 300
3
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN 1"0 before me this 4'" day of November 201.3, affiant exhibited to me he
Community Tax Certificates, to wit:
Name
THERESA SESALDO
Doc. lf-37
Page No. _jjL_
Book No.--"-){'---
Series of 2013
ere No.
141:1.4113
ATIY. LleLLAIN A. CUDAL

CO ISSION #2013087
UNTIL DECEMBER 31,2014
PTR NO. 1411413 MLA. 01-1)213
IBP NO. 842616 Q.C. Ol.Q4-1J
ROlL NO. 52609
S-1!01 AWED !'lANK Eli.OG .
Q, Si., !liNONDO, MI\NI\J\

PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Republic of the Philippines

S-ar putea să vă placă și