Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 95 views

    Araullo V Aquino, Operative Fact PDF

    Uploaded by

    Hanneza Mae Duallo
    1. The case involved the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) implemented by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) which allowed the President to reallocate funding from various sources. 2. Petitioners argued that DAP violated the constitution which states that no money can be paid from the treasury without an appropriation by law. 3. The issue was whether the release of unprogrammed funds under DAP was in accordance with the General Appropriations Acts (GAA). 4. The court applied the doctrine of operative fact, which recognizes the effects of an unconstitutional law, to uphold the effects of projects already funded by DAP but not the authors of DAP unless good faith

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Araullo V Aquino, Operative Fact PDF

    Uploaded by

    Hanneza Mae Duallo
    95 views2 pages
    1. The case involved the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) implemented by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) which allowed the President to reallocate funding from various sources. 2. Petitioners argued that DAP violated the constitution which states that no money can be paid from the treasury without an appropriation by law. 3. The issue was whether the release of unprogrammed funds under DAP was in accordance with the General Appropriations Acts (GAA). 4. The court applied the doctrine of operative fact, which recognizes the effects of an unconstitutional law, to uphold the effects of projects already funded by DAP but not the authors of DAP unless good faith

    Original Title

    Araullo v Aquino, Operative Fact.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The case involved the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) implemented by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) which allowed the President to reallocate funding from various sources. 2. Petitioners argued that DAP violated the constitution which states that no money can be paid from the treasury without an appropriation by law. 3. The issue was whether the release of unprogrammed funds under DAP was in accordance with the General Appropriations Acts (GAA). 4. The court applied the doctrine of operative fact, which recognizes the effects of an unconstitutional law, to uphold the effects of projects already funded by DAP but not the authors of DAP unless good faith

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    95 views2 pages

    Araullo V Aquino, Operative Fact PDF

    Uploaded by

    Hanneza Mae Duallo
    1. The case involved the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) implemented by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) which allowed the President to reallocate funding from various sources. 2. Petitioners argued that DAP violated the constitution which states that no money can be paid from the treasury without an appropriation by law. 3. The issue was whether the release of unprogrammed funds under DAP was in accordance with the General Appropriations Acts (GAA). 4. The court applied the doctrine of operative fact, which recognizes the effects of an unconstitutional law, to uphold the effects of projects already funded by DAP but not the authors of DAP unless good faith

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    TOPIC: Operative Fact

    Araullo v Benigno Aquino III


    GR No. 209287 (consolidated petitions), 1 July 2014

    FACTS
    1. The DBM implemented the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), through
    National Budget Circular 541, which allowed the President to reallocate funding
    from “programmed and unprogrammed funds” to various agencies.
    2. They cited Section 25(5) of the 1987 Constitution which allows the President to
    “transfer funds out of savings to augment appropriations of offices within the
    Executive Branch of the Government”.
    3. Petitioners argue that DAP is in violation of Section 29(1), Article 6 of the 1987
    Constitution which states that "[n]o money shall be paid out of the Treasury except
    in pursuance of an appropriation made by law” or in other words only through the
    GAA*.
    4. It was alleged that DAP was used to allocate an additional P50 Million per Senator
    as "incentive" for voting to impeach Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.
    5. According to Budget Secretary Abad, the releases to Senators were part of
    Spending Acceleration Program (SAP)… explaining that the funds released to the
    Senators had been part of the DAP, a program designed by the DBM to ramp up
    spending to accelerate economic expansion. He clarified that the funds had been
    released to the Senators based on their letters of request for funding.
    6. Abad explained that the funds under the DAP were usually taken from (1)
    unreleased appropriations under Personnel Services; (2) unprogrammed funds;
    (3) carry-over appropriations unreleased from the previous year; and (4) budgets
    for slow-moving items or projects that had been realigned to support faster-
    disbursing projects.
    7. The DBM claimed in its website that the DAP releases had been sourced from
    savings generated by the Government, and from unprogrammed funds; and that
    the savings had been derived from (1) the pooling of unreleased appropriations,
    like... unreleased Personnel Services appropriations that would lapse at the end
    of the year, unreleased appropriations of slow-moving projects and discontinued
    projects per zero-based budgeting findings; and (2) the withdrawal of... unobligated
    allotments also for slow-moving programs and projects that had been earlier
    released to the agencies of the National Government.
    8. The DBM listed the following as the legal bases for the DAP's use of savings, (1)
    Section 25(5), Article 6 of the 1987 Constitution, which granted to the President
    the authority to augment an item for his office in the GAA; (2) Section 49 (Authority
    to Use Savings for Certain Purposes) and Section 38 (Suspension of Expenditure
    Appropriations), Chapter 5, Book 6 of Executive Order (EO) No. 292
    (Administrative Code of 1987); and (3) the General Appropriations Acts (GAAs) of
    2011, 2012 and 2013, particularly their provisions on the (a) use of savings; (b)
    meanings of savings and augmentation; and (c) priority in the use of savings.

    ISSUE
    WON the release of unprogrammed funds under the DAP was in accord with the GAAs.

    RULING

    The doctrine of operative fact is applicable.

    The doctrine of operative fact recognizes the existence of the law or executive act prior
    to the determination of its unconstitutionality as an operative fact that produced
    consequences that cannot always be erased, ignored or disregarded. In short, it nullifies
    the void law or... executive act but sustains its effects. It provides an exception to the
    general rule that a void or unconstitutional law produces no effect.

    In that context, as Justice Brion has clarified, the doctrine of operative fact can apply only
    to the PAPs that can no longer be undone, and whose beneficiaries relied in good faith
    on the validity of the DAP, but cannot apply to the authors, proponents and implementors
    of the DAP, unless there are concrete findings of good faith in their favor by the proper
    tribunals determining their criminal, civil, administrative and other liabilities.

    *Note: GAA – General Appropriations Act is the budget that is passed every year.

    You might also like