THE Supreme Court (SC), in a vote of 12-0, has affirmed the constitutionality of the use of the Land Transportation Office (LTO) of the P341.7 million unspent funds for the procurement of driver’s license cards (DLC) with five year validity in 2016 to supplement the amount appropriated for the same purpose under the 2017 national budget.
In a 14-page decision penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda, the Court en banc denied the petition filed by former ACTS-OFW Rep. Aniceto D. Bertiz 3rd seeking to scrap the P836-million project that the LTO signed in 2017 with Dermalog Identification Systems GMBH for the procurement of DLCs.
Bertiz questioned the constitutionality of the project because according to him the 2016 General Appropriations Act did not allocate a single centavo for the 2017 DLC project.
The petitioner insisted there was no appropriation for the 2017 DLC project because the invitation to bid did not indicate the specific year of the General Fund 101 as the source of funds and Congress did not enact a law authorizing the expenditure in the form of continuing appropriations. Bertiz added there can be no validly-issued certificate as to the availability of funds because the specific year of the General Fund 101 is not indicated.
Bertiz’s arguments
BERTIZ also noted that Article 6, Section 29 (1) of the 1987 Constitution provides that “no money shall be paid out of the Treasury “except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.”
He pointed out that if Congress had deliberately and purposely intended to appropriate public funds to be used as an expenditure for the DLCs, it would have specifically and particularly approved an item of appropriation for the production of DCLs like what it did in the GAA 2013.
Bertiz pointed out that unlike the 2013 GAA, the 2016 GAA does not have items such as “Production of driver’s licenses,” which has corresponding appropriation of P528.7 million; “issuance of plates and/or tags” which has a corresponding allotment of P189.3 million; and “processing of registration application, inspection of motor vehicles for identity, safety, weight, classification and road worthiness which has a corresponding budget of P154.5 million.
However, the SC ruled that Section 65 of the 2016 GAA authorized the use of appropriations in 2016 for 2017.
‘Existing or continuing appropriations’
SECTION 65 of the 2016 GAA states that: “Appropriations authorized in this Act for MOOE (maintenance and other operating expenses) and capital outlays shall be available for release and obligation for the purpose specified, and under the same special provisions applicable thereto, for a period extending to one fiscal year after the end of the year in which such items were appropriated.”
The said provision, according to the High Tribunal, is an example of “existing or continuing appropriations” or “appropriations which have been previously enacted by Congress and which continue to remain valid as an appropriation authority for the expenditure of public funds.”
“The LTO therefore was acting well within the bounds of law when it supplemented the appropriation for its 2017 DLC project with the balance of its 2016 appropriation for the same purpose,” the SC declared.
Furthermore, the High Tribunal rejected Bertiz’s conclusion that the expenditure in the amount of P829.7 million for the 2017 DLC Project is unconstitutional for being way beyond the appropriated amount of P528.79 million under the 2017 GAA.
Not a trier of facts
THE Court said the P829.7 million supposed expenditure is well within the approved budget contract of P836 million for the 2017 DLC project.
“Considering the grant of authority for continuing appropriations under Section 65 of the 2016 GAA, the appropriation of P528,793,000.00 for the 2017 DLC Project, as supplemented by the balance of P341,713,000.00 from the 2016 DLC Project, is more than sufficient to cover the ABC of P836,000,000.00 in the 2017 DLC Project’s published Invitation to Bid,” the SC noted.
The SC ruling, however, did not tackle propriety of the bidding process conducted by the LTO as well as the subsequent award of the contract to Dermalog as the resolution of such issues involves questions of facts.
“This Court is not a trier of facts; it would be offensive to established order and the hierarchy of courts for Us to initiate such factual review,” the SC explained.
Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo and Associate Justices Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen, Ramon Paul L. Hernando, Jean Paul B. Inting, Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, Mario V. Lopez, Samuel H. Gaerlan, Jhosep Y. Lopez, Japar B. Dimaampao, Antonio T. Kho Jr. and Maria Filomena D. Singh concurred with the ruling.
Associate Justices Midas P. Marquez, Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa and Ricardo dR. Rosario were on official leave when the decision was promulgated.
