ACORD v. Zamora

8/12/2019 ACORD v. Zamora

1/14

ALTERNATIVE CENTER FOR ORGANIZATIONAL REFORMS ANDDEVELOPMENT, INC. (ACORD), BALAY MINDANAWFOUNDATION, INC. (BMFI); BARRIOS, INC.; CAMARINESSUR NGO-PO DEVELOPMENT NETWORK, INC.

(CADENET); CENTER FOR PARTICIPATORYGOVERNANCE (CPAG); ENVIRONMENTAL LEGALASSISTANCE CENTER, INC. (ELAC); FELLOWSHIP FORORGANIZING ENDEAVORS (FORGE); FOUNDATION FORLOCAL AUTONOMY AND GOOD GOVERNNANCE, INC.(FLAGG); INSTITUTE OF POLITICS AND GOVERNANCE(IPG); KAISAHAN PARA SA KAUNLARAN NG KANAYUNANAT REPORMANG PANSAKAHAN (KAISAHAN);MANGGAGAGAWANG KABABAIHANG MITHI AYPAGLAYA (MAKALAYA); NAGA CITY PEOPLES COUNCIL(NCPC); NGO-PO COUNCIL OF CAMARINES SUR FORCOMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND EMPOWERMENT, INC.(NPCCS); PAILIG DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION INC.(PDFI); PHILIPPINE ECUMENICAL ACTION FORCOMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT FOUNDATION, INC. (PEACEFOUNDATION, INC.); PHILIPPINE PARTNERSHIP FOR THEDEVELOPMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN RURALAREAS (PHILDHRRA); PILIPINA, INC. (ANG KILUSAN NGKABABAIHANG PILIPINO); SENTRO NG ALTERNATIBONG

LINGAP PANLIGAL (SALIGAN); URBAN LAND REFORMTASK FORCE (ULR-TF); ADELINO C. LAVADOR; PUNONGBARANGAY ISABEL MENDEZ; PUNONG BARANGAYCAROLINA ROMANOS, petitioners, vs. HON. RONALDOZAMORA, ! "# $%&%$' %# E*$+'* S*$*'%, HON.BENAMIN DIOKNO, ! "# $%&%$' %# S*$*'%,D*&%'/*!' 01 B+23*' %!2 M%!%3*/*!', HON. LEONORMAGTOLIS-BRIONES, ! "* $%&%$' %# N%'0!%4T*%#+*, %!2 '"* COMMISSION ON AUDIT,respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO MORALES, J.5

Pursuant to Section 22, Article VII of the Constitution[1] mandating thePresident to submit to Congress a budget of expenditures ithin thirt! da!sbefore the opening of e"er! regular session, then President #oseph $%ercito$strada submitted the &ational $xpenditures Program for 'iscal (ear 2)))* In
http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/#_ftn1http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/#_ftn1


2/14

the said Program, the President proposed an Internal +e"enue Allotment I+A- inthe amount of P676,889,:::,:::folloing the formula pro"ided for in Section2./ of the 0ocal o"ernment Code of 12, viz3

S$C4I5& 2./* Allotment of Internal Revenue Taxes* 6 0ocal go"ernmentunits shall ha"e a share in the national internal re"enue taxes based on the

collection of the third fiscal !ear preceding the current fiscal !ear as follos3

a- 5n the first !ear of the effecti"it! of this Code, thirt! percent 7)8-9

b- 5n the second !ear, thirt!:fi"e percent 7;8-9 and

c- O! '"* '"2 *% %!2 '"**%1'*, 10' &*$*!' (:0IC 5' 4=$ P=I0IPPI&$S '+5E #A&A+(5&$ 45 D$C$E>$+ 4=I+4(:5&$, 4F5 4=5SA&D, A&D '5+ 54=$+P+P5S$SG*

4he act, otherise Hnon as the eneral Appropriations Act AA- for the(ear 2))), pro"ides under the heading BA005CA4I5&S 45 05CA05V$+&E$&4 &I4SG that the I+A for local go"ernment units shall amount toP666,889,:::,:::5

VII* A005CA4I5&S 45 05CA05V$+&E$&4 &I4S

A* I&4$+&A0 +$V$&$ A0054E$&4

'or apportionment of the shares of local go"ernment units in the internalre"enue taxes in accordance ith the purpose indicated hereunderJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ*JJJ** P666,889,:::,:::

&e Appropriations, b! Purpose

Current 5perating $xpenditures

M%!'*!%!$*%!2 O'"*

Personal O&*%'!3 CapitalSer"ices E&*!#*# 5utla!s 4otal

A* P+P5S$S-

a* Internal +e"enue

Allotment P666,889,:::,::: P111,??.,))),)))

x x x

454A0 &$F

APP+5P+IA4I5&S JJJ P 666,889,:::,:::


3/14

In another part of the AA, under the heading B&P+5+AEE$D '&D,G itis pro"ided that an amount of P1),))),))),))) P1) >illion-, apart from theP111,??.,))),))) mentioned abo"e, shall be used to fund the I+A, hichamount shall be released onl! hen the original re"enue targets submitted b! thePresident to Congress can be realiKed based on a Luarterl! assessment to be

conducted b! certain committees hich the AA specifies, namel!, theDe"elopment >udget Coordinating Committee, the Committee on 'inance of theSenate, and the Committee on Appropriations of the =ouse of +epresentati"es*

0IV* &P+5+AEE$D '&D

'or fund reLuirements in accordance ith the purposes indicatedhereunder JJJJJ P/.,udgetCoordinating Committee, the Committee on 'inance of the Senate and theCommittee on Appropriations of the =ouse of +epresentati"es and shall beused to fund the folloing3

x x x x


4/14

Internal +e"enue Allotments

Eaintenance and5ther 5perating$xpenses P1),))),))),)))

::::::::::::::::::::

T0'%4, IRA P6:,:::,:::,:::

x x x x

4otal P1/,?..,?illion of I+Aunder the classification of U!&03%//*2 F+!2, the latter amount to bereleased onl! upon the occurrence of the condition stated in the AA*

5n August 22, 2))), a number of non:go"ernmental organiKations &5s-and peopleMs organiKations, along ith three baranga! officials filed ith thisCourt the petition at bar, for Certiorari, Prohibition and Eandamus Fith

Application for 4emporar! +estraining 5rder, against respondents then$xecuti"e Secretar! +onaldo Namora, then Secretar! of the Department of>udget and Eanagement >en%amin DioHno, then &ational 4reasurer 0eonorEagtolis:>riones, and the Commission on Audit, challenging the constitutionalit!of abo"e:Luoted pro"ision of VII A005CA4I5&S 45 05CA05V$+&E$&4 &I4S- referred to b! petitioners as Section 1, VII A-, and0IV &P+5+AEE$D '&D- Special Pro"isions 1 and / of the AA the AApro"isions-*

Petitioners contend that3

1* S$C4I5& 1, VII A- A&D 0IV, SP$CIA0 P+5VISI5&S 1 A&D /,5' 4=$ ($A+ 2))) AA A+$ &00 A&D V5ID '5+ >$I&&C5&S4I44I5&A0 AS 4=$( VI50A4$ 4=$ A45&5E( 5'05CA0 5V$+&E$&4S >( &0AF'00( +$DCI& >( 4$&>I00I5& P$S5S P 1) >I00I5&- 4=$ I&4$+&A0 +$V$&$

A0054E$&4S D$ 45 4=$ 05CA0 5V$+&E$&4S A&DFI4==50DI& 4=$ +$0$AS$ 5' SC= AE5&4 >( P0ACI&4=$ SAE$ &D$+ B&P+5+AEE$D '&DS*G 4=IS VI50A4$S4=$ C5&S4I44I5&A0 EA&DA4$ I& A+4* , S$C* $ A45EA4ICA00( +$0$AS$D 45 4=$E* I4A0S5 VI50A4$S 4=$ 05CA0 5V$+&E$&4 C5D$,SP$CI'ICA00(, S$CS* 1., 2./, A&D 2.$I&&C5&S4I44I5&A0 AS 4=$( VI50A4$ 4=$ A45&5E( 5'05CA0 5V$+&E$&4S >( P0ACI& 4$& >I00I5& P$S5S P 1)>I00I5&- 5' 4=$ I&4$+&A0 +$V$&$ A0054E$&4S D$ 45


5/14

4=$ 05CA0 5V$+&E$&4S, $''$C4IV$0( A&D P+AC4ICA00(,FI4=I& 4=$ C5&4+50 5' 4=$ C$&4+A0 A4=5+I4I$S*

7* S$C4I5& 1, VII A- A&D 0IV, SP$CIA0 P+5VISI5&S 1 A&D /,5' 4=$ ($A+ 2))) AA A+$ &00 A&D V5ID '5+ >$I&&C5&S4I44I5&A0 AS 4=$ P0ACI& 5' P 1) >I00I5& P$S5S

5' 4=$ I+A &D$+ B&P+5+AEE$D '&DSG C5&S4I44$SA& &D$ D$0$A4I5& 5' 0$IS0A4IV$ P5F$+ 45 4=$+$SP5&D$&4S*

/* S$C4I5& 1, VII A- A&D 0IV, SP$CIA0 P+5VISI5&S 1 A&D /,5' 4=$ ($A+ 2))) AA A+$ &00 A&D V5ID '5+ >$I&&C5&S4I44I5&A0 AS 4=$ P0ACI& 5' P 1) >I00I5& P$S5S5' 4=$ I+A &D$+ B&P+5+AEE$D '&DSG C5&S4I44$S

A& AE$&DE$&4 5' 4=$ 05CA0 5V$+&E$&4 C5D$ 5' 11,F=IC= CA&&54 >$ D5&$ I& A $&$+A0 APP+5P+IA4I5&S AC4

A&D F=IC= P+P5S$ FAS &54 +$'0$C4$D I& 4=$ 4I40$ 5'4=$ ($A+ 2))) AA*

;* 4=$ ($A+ 2))) AAMS +$DC4I5& 5' 4=$ I+A &D$+EI&$S4=$ '5&DA4I5& 5' 5+ 05CA0 5V$+&A&C$ S(S4$EF=IC= IS $SS$&4IA0 45 4=$ $''ICI$&4 5P$+A4I5& 5' 4=$5V$+&E$&4 A&D 4=$ D$V$05PE$&4 5' 4=$ &A4I5&*

atangas,represented b! then o"ernor =ermilando I* Eandanas*

5n &o"ember


6/14

ranting arguendo that, as contended b! the respondents, the resolution ofthe case had alread! been o"ertaHen b! super"ening e"ents as the I+A,including the 0S$', for 1, 2))) and 2))1, had alread! been released andthe go"ernment is no operating under a ne appropriations la, still, there iscompelling reason for this Court to resol"e the substanti"e issue raised b! theinstant petition* Super"ening e"ents, hether intended or accidental, cannot

pre"ent the Court from rendering a decision if there is a gra"e "iolation of theConstitution* $"en in cases here super"ening e"ents had made the casesmoot, the Court did not hesitate to resol"e the legal or constitutional issuesraised to formulate controlling principles to guide the bench, bar and public*

Another reason %ustif!ing the resolution b! this Court of the substanti"eissue no before it is the rule that courts ill decide a Luestion otherise mootand academic if it is Bcapable of repetition, !et e"ading re"ie*G 'or the AAs inthe coming !ears ma! contain pro"isos similar to those no being sought to bein"alidated, and !et, the Luestion ma! not be decided before another AA isenacted* It, thus, behoo"es this Court to maHe a categorical ruling on thesubstanti"e issue no*[;]

Passing on the arguments of all parties, bearing in mind the dictum that Bthecourt should not form a rule of constitutional la broader than is reLuired b! theprecise facts to hich it is applied,G [


7/14

the reLuirement of section < of +ule ?, as held in Eadrigal "s* +odas .) Phil*2;2*-* At an! rate, this pett! technicalit! deser"es scant consideration herethe Luestion at issue is one &+*4 01 4%> and there is no need of del"ing intothe "eracit! of the allegations in the petition, hich are !0' 2#&+'*2 at all b!respondents* As e ha"e held time and again, imperfections of form andtechnicalities of procedure are to be disregarded except here substantial

rights ould otherise be pre%udiced* $mphasis and underscoring supplied-

+espondents go on to claim that the same "erifications ere signed b!persons ho ere not authoriKed b! the incorporated cause:oriented groupshich the! claim to represent, hence, the Petition should be treated as anunsigned pleading*

Indeed, onl! dul! authoriKed natural persons ma! execute "erifications inbehalf of %uridical entities such as petitioners &5s and peopleMs organiKations*

As this Court held in Santos v. CABIn fact, ph!sical actions, e*g*, signing anddeli"er! of documents, ma! be performed on behalf of the corporate entit! onl!b! specificall! authoriKed indi"iduals*G []

&onetheless, the present petition cannot be treated as an unsignedpleading* 'or e"en if the rule that representati"es of corporate entities mustpresent the reLuisite authoriKation ere to be strictl! applied, there ould remainamong the multi:group:petitioners the indi"iduals ho "alidl! executed"erifications in their on names, namel!, petitioners Adelino C* 0a"ador, Punong>aranga! Isabel EendeK, and Punong >aranga! Carolina +omanos*

At all e"ents, in light of the folloing ruling of this Court in Shi!side Inc. v. CA3[1)]

* * * in "o#ola, Road$a#, and %#, the Court excused non&com!liance iththe reLuirement as to the certificate of non:forum shopping* Fith more reasonshould e allo the instant petition since petitioner herein did su'mit acertification on non&forum sho!!ing, failing onl! to sho proof that the signator!as authoriKed to do so* 4hat petitioner subseLuentl! submitted a secretar!Mscertificate attesting that >albin as authoriKed to file an action on behalf ofpetitioner liHeise mitigates this o"ersight*

It must also be Hept in mind that hile the reLuirement of the certificate ofnon:forum shopping is mandator!, nonetheless the reLuirements must not beinterpreted too literall! and thus defeat the ob%ecti"e of pre"enting theundesirable practice of forum:shopping Bernardo v. ("RC 2;; SC+A 1).[1


8/14

+espondents assail petitionersM standing in this contro"ers!, proffering that itis the local go"ernment units @ each ha"ing a separate %uridical entit! @ hichstand to be in%ured*

4he subseLuent inter"ention of the pro"inces of >atangas and &ue"a $ci%ahich ha"e adopted the arguments of petitioners has, hoe"er, made the

Luestion of standing academic*[11]

+espondents, contending that petitioners ha"e no cause of action againstthem as the! claim to ha"e no responsibilit! ith respect to the mandate of theAA pro"isions, proffer that the committees mentioned in the AA pro"isions,namel!, the De"elopment >udget Coordinating Committee, Committee on'inance of the Senate, and Committee on Appropriations of the =ouse of+epresentati"es, should instead ha"e been impleaded*

+espondentsM position does not lie*

4he AA pro"isions being challenged ere not to be implemented solel! b!

the committees specificall! mentioned therein, for the! being in the nature ofappropriations pro"isions, the! ere also to be implemented b! the executi"ebranch, particularl! the Department of >udget and Eanagement D>E- and the&ational 4reasurer* 4he tasH of the committees related merel! to the conduct ofthe Luarterl! assessment reLuired in the pro"isions, and not in the actual releaseof the I+A hich is the dut! of the executi"e* Since the present contro"ers!centers on the proper manner of releasing the I+A, the impleaded respondentsare the proper parties to this suit*

In fact in earlier petitions liHeise in"ol"ing the constitutionalit! of pro"isionsof pre"ious general appropriations acts hich this Court granted, the thereinrespondent officials ere the same as those in the present case, e.g., )uingona

v. Carague[12]and P*I"C+(SA v. Enri,uez*[17]

C0!#''+'0!%4' 01 '"* GAA P0#0!#

Article , Section < of the Constitution pro"ides3

S$C4I5&


9/14

Da"ide and Commissioner &olledo in the deliberations of the ConstitutionalCommission on the abo"e:Luoted Sec* ( 0AF, in the nationaltaxes F=IC= S=A00 >$ automaticall! P$+I5DICA00( released to them*G

E+* &500$D5* 4hat ill be Section 12, subsection 1- in the amendment*

E+* DAVID$* &o, e ill %ust delete that because the second ould beanother section so Section 12 ould onl! be this3 B05CA0 5V$+&E$&4&I4S S=A00 =AV$ A #S4 S=A+$, AS D$4$+EI&$D >( 0AF, in thenational taxes F=IC= S=A00 >$ automaticall! P$+I5DICA00( released tothem*G

E+* &500$D5* >ut the ord BP$+I5DICA00(G ma! mean possibl!ithholding the automatic release to them b! adopting certain periods of

automatic release* If e use the ord Bautomaticall!G ithoutBP$+I5DICA00(,G the latter ma! be alread! contemplated b! Bautomaticall!*GSo, the Committee ob%ects to the ord BP$+I5DICA00(*G

E+* DAVID$* If e do not sa! P$+I5DICA00(, it might be "er!, "er!difficult to compl! ith it because these are taxes collected and actuall!released b! the !%'0!%4 30*!/*!' e"er! Luarter* It is not that uponcollection a portion should immediatel! be released* It is Luarterl!* 5therise,the !%'0!%4 30*!/*!'ill ha"e to remit e"er!da! and that ould be "er!expensi"e*

E+* &500$D5* 4hat is not hindered b! the ord Bautomaticall!*G >ut ife put Bautomaticall!G and BP$+I5DICA00(G at the same time, that means

certain periods ha"e to be obser"ed as ill be set forth b! the B+23*' O11$*thereb! negating the meaning of Bautomaticall!*G

E+* DAVID$* 5n the other hand, if e do not state P$+I5DICA00(, itma! be done e"er! semester9 it ma! be done at the end of the !ear* It is stillautomatic release*

E+* &500$D5* As far as the Committee is concerned, e "igorousl!ob%ect to the ord BP$+I5DICA00(*G

E+* DAVID$* 5nl! the ord P$+I5DICA00(R

E+* &500$D5* If the Commissioner is amenable to deleting that, e illaccept the amendment*

E+* DAVID$* I ill agree to the deletion of the ord P$+I5DICA00(*

E+* &500$D5* 4hanH !ou*

4he Committee accepts the amendment* $mphasis supplied-[1/]

In the abo"e exchange of statements, it is clear that although CommissionersDa"ide and &olledo held different "ies ith regard to the proper ording of theconstitutional pro"ision, the! shared a common assumption that the entit! hich
http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/#_ftn14http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/#_ftn14


10/14

ould execute the automatic release of internal re"enue as the executi"edepartment*

Commissioner Da"ide referred to the national go"ernment as the entit! thatcollects and remits internal re"enue* Similarl!, Commissioner &olledo alluded tothe >udget 5fficer, ho is clearl! under the executi"e branch*

+espondents thus infer that the sub%ect constitutional pro"ision merel!pre"ents the executi"e branch of the go"ernment from Bunilaterall!G ithholdingthe I+A, but not the legislature from authoriKing the executi"e branch to ithholdthe same* In the ords of respondents, B4his essentiall! means that thePresident or an! member of the $xecuti"e Department cannot unilaterall!, i.e.,>'"0+' '"* =%$?!3 01 #'%'+'*, ithhold the release of the I+A*G [1;]

+espondentsM position does not lie*

As the Constitution la!s upon the executi"e the dut! to automaticall! releasethe %ust share of local go"ernments in the national taxes, so it en%oins the

legislature not to pass las that might pre"ent the executi"e from performing thisdut!* 4o hold that the executi"e branch ma! disregard constitutional pro"isionshich define its duties, pro"ided it has the bacHing of statute, is "irtuall! to maHethe Constitution amendable b! statute @ a proposition hich is patentl! absurd*

Eoreo"er, there is merit in the argument of the inter"enor Pro"ince of>atangas that, if indeed the framers intended to allo the enactment of statutesmaHing the release of I+A conditional instead of automatic, then Article ,Section < of the Constitution ould ha"e been orded differentl!* Instead ofreading B0ocal go"ernment units shall ha"e a %ust share, as determined '# la$, inthe national taxes hich shall be automaticall! released to themG italicssupplied-, it ould ha"e read as follos, so the Pro"ince of >atangas posits3

B0ocal go"ernment units shall ha"e a %ust share, as determined '# la$, inthe national taxes hich shall be [automaticall!] released to them as !rovided'# la$,G or,

B0ocal go"ernment units shall ha"e a %ust share in the national taxes hichshall be [automaticall!] released to them as !rovided '# la$,G or

B0ocal go"ernment units shall ha"e a %ust share, as determined '# la$, inthe national taxes hich shall be automaticall! released to them su'-ect toexce!tions Congress ma# !rovide*G[1


11/14

In Batangas, the petitioner therein challenged the constitutionalit! of certainpro"isos of the AAs for '( 1, 2))), and 2))1 hich set up the 0ocalo"ernment Ser"ice $LualiKation 'und 0S$'-* 4he 0S$' as a portion ofthe I+A hich as to be released onl! upon a finding of the 5"ersight Committeeon De"olution that the 0 concerned had complied ith the guidelines issued

b! said committee* 4his Court measured the challenged legislati"e acts againstArticle , Section < and declared them unconstitutional @ a ruling hichpresupposes that the legislature, liHe the executi"e, is mandated b! saidconstitutional pro"ision to ensure that the %ust share of local go"ernments in thenational taxes are automaticall! released*

+espondents, in further support of their claim that the automatic releasereLuirement in the Constitution constrains onl! the executi"e branch and not thelegislature, cite three statutor! pro"isions hereb! the legislature authoriKed theexecuti"e branch to ithhold the I+A in certain circumstances, namel!, Section?) of the Philippine &ational Police +eform and +eorganiKation Act of 1., [1.]

Section ;71e- of the 0ocal o"ernment Code, [1]and Section 1) of +epublic Act

?2/ 1;-*[2)] 4oards the same end, respondents also cite +ule II, Article7.7c- of the +ules and +egulations Implementing the 0ocal o"ernment Code* [21]

Fhile statutes and implementing rules are entitled to great eight inconstitutional construction as indicators of contemporaneous interpretation, suchinterpretation is not necessaril! binding or conclusi"e on the courts* In Taada v.Cuenco, the Court held3

As a conseLuence, Bhere the meaning of a constitutional pro"ision is clear, acontemporaneous or practical * * * executi"e interpretation thereof is entitled tono eight and ill not be alloed to distort or in an! a! change its naturalmeaning*G 4he reason is that Bthe application of the doctrine of

contemporaneous construction is /0* *#'$'*2 as applied to theinterpretation of $0!#''+'0!%4 pro"isions than hen applied to statutor!pro"isions,G and that Bexcept as to matters committed b! the constitution itself tothe discretion of some other department, contemporaneous or practicalconstruction is not necessaril! binding upon the courts, e"en in a doubtfulcase*G =ence, Bif in the %udgment of the court, such construction is erroneousand its further application is not made imperati"e b! an! paramountconsiderations of public polic!, it ma! be re%ected*G $mphasis andunderscoring supplied, citations omitted-[22]

4he "alidit! of the legislati"e acts assailed in the present case should,therefore, be assessed in light of Article , Section < of the Constitution*

Again, in Batangas,[27] this Court interpreted the sub%ect constitutionalpro"ision as follos3

Fhen &%#*2, it ould be readil! seen that this pro"ision mandates that 1-the 0s shall ha"e a B%ust shareG in the national taxes9 2- the B%ust shareGshall be determined b! la9 and 7- the B%ust shareG shall be automaticall!released to the 0s*

x x x
http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/#_ftn18http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/#_ftn19http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/#_ftn19http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/#_ftn20http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/#_ftn20http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/#_ftn21http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/#_ftn22http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/#_ftn23http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/#_ftn18http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/#_ftn19http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/#_ftn20http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/#_ftn21http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/#_ftn22http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/#_ftn23


12/14

FebsterMs 4hird &e International Dictionar! defines BautomaticG asBin"oluntar! either holl! or to a ma%or extent so that an! acti"it! of the ill islargel! negligible9 of a reflex nature9 ithout "olition9 mechanical9 liHe orsuggesti"e of an automaton*G 'urther, the ord Bautomaticall!G is defined as Binan automatic manner3 ithout thought or conscious intention*G >eingBautomatic,G thus, connotes something mechanical, spontaneous and

perfunctor!* x x xG $mphasis and underscoring supplied-[2/]

'urther on, the Court held3

4o the CourtMs mind, the entire process in"ol"ing the distribution andrelease of the 0S$' is constitutionall! impermissible* 4he 0S$' is part ofthe I+A or B%ust shareG of the 0s in the national taxes* 4o sub%ect itsdistribution and release to the "agaries of the implementing rules andregulations, including the guidelines and mechanisms unilaterall! prescribed b!the 5"ersight Committee from time to time, as sanctioned b! the assailedpro"isos in the AAs of 1, 2))) and 2))1 and the 5CD resolutions, maHesthe release !0'automatic, a flagrant "iolation of the constitutional and statutor!mandate that the B%ust shareG of the 0s Bshall be automaticall! released to

them*G 4he 0s are, thus, placed at the merc! of the 5"ersight Committee*

Fhere the la, the Constitution in this case, is clear and unambiguous, itmust be taHen to mean exactl! hat it sa!s, and courts ha"e no choice but tosee to it that the mandate is obe!ed* Eoreo"er, as correctl! posited b! thepetitioner, the use of the ord BshallG connotes a mandator! order* Its use in astatute denotes an imperati"e obligation and is inconsistent ith the idea ofdiscretion* x x x $mphasis and underscoring supplied- [2;]

Fhile Bautomatic releaseG implies that the %ust share of the local go"ernmentsdetermined b! la should be released to them as a matter of course, the AApro"isions, on the other hand, ithhold its release pending an e"ent hich is not

e"en certain of occurring* 4o rule that the term Bautomatic releaseG contemplatessuch conditional release ould be to strip the term BautomaticG of all meaning*

Additionall!, to interpret the term automatic releasein such a broad mannerould be inconsistent ith the ruling in Pimentel v. Aguirre*[2udget Coordinating Committee of the emerging fiscal
http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/#_ftn24http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/#_ftn25http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/132988.htmhttp://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/#_ftn26http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/#_ftn24http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/#_ftn25http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/132988.htmhttp://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/#_ftn26


13/14

situationG in the countr!* Such ithholding clearl! contra"enes the Constitutionand the la* x x x[2?]Italics in the original9 underscoring supplied-

4here is no substantial difference beteen the ithholding of I+A in"ol"ed inPimenteland that in the present case, except that here it is the legislature, notthe executi"e, hich has authoriKed the ithholding of the I+A* 4he distinction

notithstanding, the ruling in Pimentelremains applicable* As explained abo"e,Article , Section < of the Constitution @ the same pro"ision relied upon inPimentel@ en%oins 'oththe legislati"e and executi"e branches of go"ernment*=ence, as in Pimentel, under the same constitutional pro"ision, the legislati"e isbarred from ithholding the release of the I+A*

It bears stressing, hoe"er, that in light of the pro"iso in Section 2./ of the0ocal o"ernment Code hich reads3

Provided, 4hat in the e"ent that the national go"ernment incurs anunmanageable public sector deficit, the President of the Philippines is hereb!authoriKed, upon the recommendation of Secretar! of 'inance, Secretar! of

Interior and 0ocal o"ernment and Secretar! of >udget and Eanagement, andsub%ect to consultation ith the presiding officers of both =ouses of Congressand the presidents of the Qliga,Q to maHe the necessar! ad%ustments in theinternal re"enue allotment of local go"ernment units but in no case shall theallotment be less than thirt! percent 7)8- of the collection of national internalre"enue taxes of the third fiscal !ear preceding the current fiscal !ear3Pro"ided, further, 4hat in the first !ear of the effecti"it! of this Code, the localgo"ernment units shall, in addition to the thirt! percent 7)8- internal re"enueallotment hich shall include the cost of de"ol"ed functions for essential publicser"ices, be entitled to recei"e the amount eLui"alent to the cost of de"ol"edpersonal ser"ices* nderscoring supplied-,

the onl! possible exception to mandator! automatic release of the I+A is, as held

in Batangas3

Jif the national internal re"enue collections for the current fiscal !ear isless than /) percent of the collections of the preceding third fiscal !ear, inhich case hat should be automaticall! released shall be a proportionateamount of the collections for the current fiscal !ear* 4he ad%ustment ma! e"enbe made on a Luarterl! basis depending on the actual collections of nationalinternal re"enue taxes for the Luarter of the current fiscal !ear* x x x [2.]

A final ord* 4his Court recogniKes that the passage of the AA pro"isionsb! Congress as moti"ated b! the laudable intent to Bloer the budget deficit inline ith prudent fiscal management*G[2] 4he pronouncement in Pimentel,

hoe"er, must be echoed3 B[4]he rule of la reLuires that e"en the bestintentions must be carried out ithin the parameters of the Constitution and thela* Veril!, laudable purposes must be carried out b! legal methods*G[7)]

WHEREFORE, the petition is +A&4$D* VII and 0IV Special Pro"isions1 and / of the (ear 2))) AA are hereb! declared unconstitutional insofar asthe! set apart a portion of the I+A, in the amount of P1) >illion, as part of the&P+5+AEE$D '&D*
http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/#_ftn27http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/#_ftn28http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/#_ftn29http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/#_ftn30http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/#_ftn27http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/#_ftn28http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/#_ftn29http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/#_ftn30


14/14

SO ORDERED.

ACORD v. Zamora

Documents

Transcript of ACORD v. Zamora