Case Digest: Araullo v Abad GR 209287

ISSUE:  Whether or not the DAP, and all other executive issuances allegedly implementing the DAP, violated Sec 25(5) of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution 

FACTS:  Maria Carolina Araullo filed a petition before the Supreme Court questioning the validity of DAP (Disbursement Accellaration Program). That, it is unconstitutional because it violates the constitutional rule which provides that "no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. DBM Secretary Abad argued that the DAP is based on GAA (General Appropriations Act) (Savings and augmentation provisions) 

DECISION:  Partly Granted 

RATIO DECIDENDI:  Yes, it violated Sec 25 (5) of Article VI of the Costitution.   The augmentation is, according to the ponencia, and defined in Art. VI, Sec. 25 (5) of the 1987 Constitution, and authorized within each year’s General Appropriations Act (GAA), is the use of clearly-identified savings in the expenditures of government departments and offices to augment clearly-identified, actual deficiencies within those respective government departments and offices. What augmentation is not, however, is to allocate what was not authorized as an expenditure in the GAA. It is not a transfer of executive department savings to legislative lump sum allocations (cross-border augmentation) – by virtue of the latter’s unconstitutionality, or at the very least, because such itself violates Art. VI Sec. 25 (5)