This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2014-07-01 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| When he assumed office in the middle of 2010, President Aquino made efficiency and transparency in government spending a significant focus of his Administration. Yet, although such focus resulted in an improved fiscal deficit of 0.5% in the gross domestic product (GDP) from January to July of 2011, it also unfortunately decelerated government project implementation and payment schedules.[103] The World Bank observed that the Philippines' economic growth could be reduced, and potential growth could be weakened should the Government continue with its underspending and fail to address the large deficiencies in infrastructure.[104] The economic situation prevailing in the middle of 2011 thus paved the way for the development and implementation of the DAP as a stimulus package intended to fast-track public spending and to push economic growth by investing on high-impact budgetary PAPs to be funded from the "savings" generated during the year as well as from unprogrammed funds.[105] In that respect, the DAP was the product of "plain executive policy-making" to stimulate the economy by way of accelerated spending.[106] The Administration would thereby accelerate government spending by: (1) streamlining the implementation process through the clustering of infrastructure projects of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and the Department of Education (DepEd), and (2) frontloading PPP-related projects[107] due for implementation in the following year.[108] | |||||
|
2013-11-19 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| The 2002[49] PDAF Article was brief and straightforward as it merely contained a single special provision ordering the release of the funds directly to the implementing agency or local government unit concerned, without further qualifications. The following year, 2003,[50] the same single provision was present, with simply an expansion of purpose and express authority to realign. Nevertheless, the provisions in the 2003 budgets of the Department of Public Works and Highways[51] (DPWH) and the DepEd[52] required prior consultation with Members of Congress on the aspects of implementation delegation and project list submission, respectively. In 2004, the 2003 GAA was re-enacted.[53] | |||||
|
2013-11-19 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| It was in the year 2000[46] that the "Priority Development Assistance Fund" (PDAF) appeared in the GAA. The requirement of "prior consultation with the respective Representative of the District" before PDAF funds were directly released to the implementing agency concerned was explicitly stated in the 2000 PDAF Article. Moreover, realignment of funds to any expense category was expressly allowed, with the sole condition that no amount shall be used to fund personal services and other personnel benefits.[47] The succeeding PDAF provisions remained the same in view of the re-enactment[48] of the 2000 GAA for the year 2001. | |||||
|
2013-11-19 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| In the 2012[72] and 2013[73] PDAF Articles, it is stated that the "[i]dentification of projects and/or designation of beneficiaries shall conform to the priority list, standard or design prepared by each implementing agency [(priority list requirement)] x x x." However, as practiced, it would still be the individual legislator who would choose and identify the project from the said priority list.[74] | |||||
|
2005-09-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| appurtenant in a general appropriations bill when they specify certain conditions and restrictions in the manner by which the funds to which they relate have to be spent. In Gonzales v. Macaraig, Jr.,[10] the Court struck down Section 55 and Section 16 of the appropriations acts for the fiscal years 1989 and 1990, respectively, because they were not provisions in the budgetary sense of the term. Both sections | |||||