Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
83 views

Maria Carolina P. Araullo Et. Al

The document is a Supreme Court decision regarding the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) of the Philippine government. It summarizes that: (1) Senators revealed receiving additional funds for voting to impeach the Chief Justice, which the government claimed came from DAP savings; (2) Petitioners alleged the DAP withdrew unobligated agency funds via NBC No. 541; and (3) The Court found the doctrine of operative fact applied to the DAP's implementation, such that its consequences cannot be ignored, though does not apply to DAP authors without a good faith finding. The decision upholds DAP effects relying on it in good faith, but not a blanket protection of its creators.

Uploaded by

Claire Silvestre
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
83 views

Maria Carolina P. Araullo Et. Al

The document is a Supreme Court decision regarding the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) of the Philippine government. It summarizes that: (1) Senators revealed receiving additional funds for voting to impeach the Chief Justice, which the government claimed came from DAP savings; (2) Petitioners alleged the DAP withdrew unobligated agency funds via NBC No. 541; and (3) The Court found the doctrine of operative fact applied to the DAP's implementation, such that its consequences cannot be ignored, though does not apply to DAP authors without a good faith finding. The decision upholds DAP effects relying on it in good faith, but not a blanket protection of its creators.

Uploaded by

Claire Silvestre
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

G.R. No.

209287 July 1, 2014


MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO et. Al
vs.
BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, et.al
DECISION
BERSAMIN, J.:

Facts:

On September 25, 2013, Sen. Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada delivered a privilege


speech in the Senate of the Philippines to reveal that some Senators, including
himself, had been allotted an additional P50 Million each as "incentive" for voting
in favor of the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.

Responding to Sen. Estrada’s revelation, Secretary Florencio Abad of the


DBM issued a public statement entitled Abad: Releases to Senators Part of
Spending Acceleration Program, 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.

The DBM soon came out to claim 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 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.

The petitioners brought to the Court’s attention NBC No. 541 (Adoption of
Operational Efficiency Measure – Withdrawal of Agencies’ Unobligated Allotments
as of June 30, 2012), alleging that NBC No. 541, which was issued to implement the
DAP, directed the withdrawal of unobligated allotments as of June 30, 2012 of
government agencies and offices with low levels of obligations, both for continuing
and current allotments.
Issue:

Whether or not the Doctrine of Operative Fact is applicable?

Yes. Doctrine of operative fact was 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.

We find the doctrine of operative fact applicable to the adoption and


implementation of the DAP. Its application to the DAP proceeds from equity
and fair play. The consequences resulting from the DAP and its related
issuances could not be ignored or could no longer be undone.

To be clear, the doctrine of operative fact extends to a void or


unconstitutional executive act. The term executive act is broad enough to
include any and all acts of the Executive, including those that are quasi
legislative and quasi-judicial in nature.

Nonetheless, as Justice Brion has pointed out during the deliberations, the
doctrine of operative fact does not always apply, and is not always the
consequence of every declaration of constitutional invalidity. It can be
invoked only in situations where the nullification of the effects of what used
to be a valid law would result in inequity and injustice; but where no such
result would ensue, the general rule that an unconstitutional law is totally
ineffective should apply.

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.

You might also like