This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-02-03 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Respondents contend, however, that withdrawn unobligated allotments and unreleased appropriations under the DAP are savings that may be used for augmentation, and that the withdrawal of unobligated allotments were made pursuant to Section 38 Chapter 5, Book VI of the Administrative Code;[18] that Section 38 and Section 39, Chapter 5, Book VI of the Administrative Code are consistent with Section 25(5), Article VI of the Constitution, which, taken together, constitute "a framework for which economic managers of the nation may pull various levers in the form of authorization from Congress to efficiently steer the economy towards the specific and general purposes of the GAA;"[19] and that the President's augmentation of deficient items is in accordance with the standing authority issued by Congress through Section 39. | |||||
|
2014-07-01 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value.[41] | |||||