In a 29-page petition for certiorari and prohibition, several cause oriented groups told the high court that the disbursement of DAP “infringes on the constitutional limits regarding appropriation and disposition of public funds.”
Section 29 (1) Article VI of the 1987 Constitution states that “no money shall be paid out of the treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.
While Article VI, Section 25(5) of the Constitution provides that all appropriation bills shall emanate from the House of Representatives.
Also, the same provision further restricts that only items in the general appropriations law allocated for the respective offices of 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 be augmented by its own savings.
The two provisions, petitioners said was violated by the Department of Budget and Management Circular 541 which embodies the DAP.
While the circular uses as its basis Executive Order 292 on the use of savings as well as Section 25(5) of the 1987 Constitution, petitioners said “the cited provisions do not suffice to provide for the legal bases in the creation and implementation of DAP.”
“No less than the Constitution mandates that public funds will not be paid out of the national treasury exception through an appropriation law enacted by Congress,” petitioners stated.
“In the case of DAP, no appropriation law was enacted stating the amount that may be spent for it, as well as the purpose for which DAP may be spent.”