III. No, the transfers made through the DAP were unconstitutional.

It is true that the President (and even the

heads of the other branches of the government) are allowed by the Constitution to make realignment of funds,
however, such transfer or realignment should only be made within their respective offices. Thus, no cross-border
transfers/augmentations may be allowed. But under the DAP, this was violated because funds appropriated by the
GAA for the Executive were being transferred to the Legislative and other non-Executive agencies.

Further, transfers within their respective offices also contemplate realignment of funds to an existing project
in the GAA. Under the DAP, even though some projects were within the Executive, these projects are non-existent
insofar as the GAA is concerned because no funds were appropriated to them in the GAA. Although some of these
projects may be legitimate, they are still non-existent under the GAA because they were not provided for by the GAA.
As such, transfer to such projects is unconstitutional and is without legal basis.

On the issue of what are savings

These DAP transfers are not savings contrary to what was being declared by the Executive. Under the
definition of savings in the GAA, savings only occur, among other instances, when there is an excess in the funding
of a certain project once it is completed, finally discontinued, or finally abandoned. The GAA does not refer to
savings as funds withdrawn from a slow moving project. Thus, since the statutory definition of savings was not
complied with under the DAP, there is no basis at all for the transfers. Further, savings should only be declared at the
end of the fiscal year. But under the DAP, funds are already being withdrawn from certain projects in the middle of the
year and then being declared as savings by the Executive particularly by the DBM.

IV. No. Unprogrammed funds from the GAA cannot be used as money source for the DAP because under
the law, such funds may only be used if there is a certification from the National Treasurer to the effect that the
revenue collections have exceeded the revenue targets. In this case, no such certification was secured before
unprogrammed funds were used.

V. Yes. The Doctrine of Operative Fact, which recognizes the legal effects of an act prior to it being declared
as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, is applicable. The DAP has definitely helped stimulate the economy. It has
funded numerous projects. If the Executive is ordered to reverse all actions under the DAP, then it may cause more
harm than good. The DAP effects can no longer be undone. The beneficiaries of the DAP cannot be asked to return
what they received especially so that they relied on the validity of the DAP. However, the Doctrine of Operative Fact
may not be applicable to the authors, implementers, and proponents of the DAP if it is so found in the appropriate
tribunals (civil, criminal, or administrative) that they have not acted in good faith.