Araullo vs Executive Secretary Paquito N

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 7/24/2019 Araullo vs Executive Secretary Paquito N

    1/1

    Araullo vs Executive Secretary

    Facts:

    On 25 September 2013, Senator Jinggoy Estrada delivered a privileged speech before the Senate,alleging that Senators had received an incentive !orth "50 million for voting in favor of the

    impeachment of #hief J$stice %enato #& #orona& 'his sp$rred (epartment of )$dget

    *anagement +()* Secretary -lorencio .bad /// to iss$e a statement that the f$nds released!ere part of the (isb$rsement .cceleration "rogram +(.", !hich !as designed by the ()* as

    a stim$l$s pacage to increase government spending&

    'he (." !as allegedly first evidenced by a memorand$m of Sec& .bad dated 12 October 2011,

    asing for the "residents approval for the implementation of the (."& /t listed so$rces of f$nds

    amo$nting to "2&11 billion, along !ith proposed priority proects to be f$nded& 'he billions of

    pesos for (.", according to the ()*, !ere collected from the savings of the government and

    its 4nprogrammed -$nds& 'he savings incl$ded+a 4nreleased appropriations for $nfilled positions !hich !ill lapse at the end of the

    year6+b .vailable balances from completed or discontin$ed proects6

    +c 4nreleased appropriations of slo! moving proects and discontin$ed proects6 and

    +d 7ithdra!n $nobligated allotments !hich have earlier been released to 89.

    .ll these events gave rise to :$estions on the legality of this move by the ()*& "etitions !ere

    filed before the S$preme #o$rt challenging the constit$tionality of the (.", 8ational

    )$dget #irc$lar +8)# 8o& 5;2, and related iss$ances of the (epartment of )$dget and*anagement +()* implementing the (."&

    Issues:1& 7hether or not the (." violated the e:$al protection cla$se and the principle of separation

    of po!ers2& 7hether or not the doctrine of operative fact sho$ld apply to proects f$nded by the (."

    Held:1& 'he #o$rt r$led that the arg$ment that the (." !as $sed to discriminate against some

    legislators lacs fact$al and legal basis& .lso, it pointed that it !as merely spec$lative to

    concl$de that the (." effectively stayed the hands of legislators from cond$cting in:$ires onthe e