SYJUCOs PETITION

We have to recognize the supremacy of the constitution. Therefore, constitutional parameters

must remain to be observed and conformed.
The power of judicial review is limited to actual cases and controversies. The court can decide
the constitutionality of an act only when a proper case between opposing parties is submitted for
judicial determination. Regarding DAP, we have to consider that this is a matter of public interest since
all tax payers of this country stand to be directly affected by the illegal appropriation and disbursement
of public funds. This petition is filed in behalf of tax payers directly affected by the misappropriation.
Reasons why DAP should be declared unconstitutional.
1. No law was passed and promulgated for the creation of DAP.
2. The funds were taken from slow moving projects which were neither completed nor performed
so they are not savings as contemplated in the Constitution.
3. The DAP was and is being used to augment new budget allocations not approved by the
legislature.
Sec. 24, Article 25. All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public debt,
bills of local application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, but
the Senate may propose or concur with amendments.
Sec. 25, Article XV. No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the
President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to
augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other
items of their respective appropriations.
From the provisions, it is clear that all appropriation bills emanate from the House of Representatives
belonging to the legislative branch. The power of the purse belongs to the congress subject only to veto
of the president. The President may propose the budget but the Congress still have the final say.
From the nature of DAP itself, its sources and implementation, it is not a budget surplus after projects
has been enacted. In this case, no enactment was present and such cannot be considered as savings
within the meaning of the law. Further, the constitution provides that the augmentation of budget by
any offices may only be done by augmenting an existing budget included in the general appropriations
law in their respective office. Thus, DAP is in direct contravention of the Constitution specifically
pertaining to the stated provisions and also with respect to the extent of the power of each of the
branches of the Government in the budget process.