By Atty. Julius Gregory B. Delgado
ON CONFIDENTIAL FUNDS OF THE VICE PRESIDENT
A petition has been filed assailing the transfer of funds worth Php125 Million from the Office of the President to the Vice President for the year 2022 assailing the same as unconstitutional and usurpation of legislative powers of Congress which has power of the purse. The relevant constitutional provision is Section 25 (5), Article VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which provides that “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.” Regarding this realignment of funds for the confidential funds of the Office of the Vice President, the Office of the President argues that under Special Provision No. 1 of the 2022 General Appropriations Act, it is empowered to “approve releases to cover funding requirements of ‘new or urgent activities or projects that need to be implemented or paid.” The case of first impression on this provision of the fundamental law of the land was raised in the case of Philippine Constitution Association (Philconsa) vs. Enriquez, G.R. No. 113105 (August 19, 1994), wherein the petitioners assailed the special provision allowing a member of Congress to realign his allocation for operational expenses to any other expense category. The Supreme Court in that case denied the petition stating it is the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives who shall approve the realignment and the member of Congress will only determine and recommend the realignment of savings in the allotments for their operating expenses. However, the Supreme Court clearly stated that: (1) the funds to be realigned or transferred are actually savings in the items of expenditures from which the same are to be taken; and (2) the transfer or realignment is for the purposes of augmenting the items of expenditure to which said transfer or realignment is to be made. The burden of moving forward of evidence now lies with the Office of the President and Office of the Vice President, which are expected to be represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, that the funds realigned or transferred were indeed savings in the items of expenditure from the Office of the Vice President and that the transfer or realigned funds is for the purposes of augment the items of expenditure to which the said transfer or realignment is to be made. On the second requirement, it must be shown that there is already an item for confidential funds in the budget of the Office of the Vice President it being only augmented. We shall await for the Supreme Court ruling which will clearly restate the requisites for a valid realignment of savings to another item as laid down in Section 25 (5), Article VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. This case will clearly enrich our jurisprudence and will guide our leaders in governance.