POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

X. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

C. Powers of the President

8. Powers Relative to Appropriation Measures

I. General Principles

The President’s powers relative to appropriation measures are a critical component of executive authority, balancing the legislative power of the purse with the President's constitutional role in executing laws. Appropriation measures pertain to laws that allocate or authorize the disbursement of government funds for specific purposes. The interaction between the President and Congress, particularly on budgetary issues, is defined by several constitutional provisions and established jurisprudence.

The President’s powers relative to appropriation measures can be categorized into two broad areas: proposing the budget and vetoing or approving appropriation measures.

II. The President's Role in the Budget Process

A. Proposal of the National Budget (Budgetary Initiative)

Section 22, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides that the President shall submit to Congress, within thirty days from the opening of each regular session, a budget of expenditures and sources of financing, including receipts from existing and proposed revenue measures.
- This is part of the executive power of budget preparation. The national budget submitted by the President reflects the executive branch’s plan for how public funds should be allocated for the upcoming fiscal year. This is submitted in the form of the General Appropriations Bill (GAB).
The preparation of the budget proposal is primarily coordinated by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). The President directs the DBM to craft a budget consistent with national priorities, economic conditions, and revenue projections.
The executive budget proposal sets the framework for government fiscal policy and reflects the President's administration's policy priorities. It is considered a political document that reflects the socio-economic goals of the administration.

B. Line-Item Veto Power

Section 27(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution grants the President a line-item veto power in appropriation, revenue, and tariff bills. This power allows the President to selectively veto particular items in an appropriations bill without vetoing the entire bill.
- Line-item veto is a significant mechanism that allows the President to exercise fiscal discipline and control public spending. It is aimed at curbing unnecessary or excessive appropriations inserted by Congress, especially those that could lead to a bloated budget or compromise the fiscal sustainability of the government.
Scope of the Line-Item Veto:
- The veto applies only to items of appropriations in an appropriation bill. Items must be specific appropriations of money for particular purposes. If a portion of the bill is not an item of appropriation but a provision of general law, the President may not veto it through the line-item veto.
- The Supreme Court in PHILCONSA v. Enriquez (1994) ruled that a provision within the General Appropriations Act (GAA) that does not appropriate funds is not an item of appropriation. Thus, it cannot be subject to a line-item veto.
Veto Messages: When the President exercises the line-item veto, the vetoed items are returned to Congress with a veto message specifying the reasons for the rejection. Congress can reconsider the vetoed items and may override the veto by a two-thirds vote of all its members.

C. Authority over Contingency Funds and the Power to Reallocate or Rescind Appropriations

Power to Realign or Transfer Appropriations (Sec. 25(5), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution):
- The President is prohibited from transferring appropriations; however, transfers may be allowed under the following conditions:
  - If authorized by law;
  - If the transfer is from savings in other appropriations;
  - The purpose of the transfer must be to augment another item in the GAA.
Savings:
- Savings refer to portions of funds appropriated that are no longer needed for their original purpose due to completed projects, under-spending, or cancellation of programs.
- The President, along with other heads of the executive departments, can declare savings from appropriations and use these savings to augment other items of appropriations, but only in accordance with the law.
Jurisprudence on the Use of Savings:
- In Araullo v. Aquino (2014), the Supreme Court ruled on the controversial Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), declaring unconstitutional certain acts of the Executive Department involving the realignment and use of savings beyond what is permitted by the Constitution. The decision highlighted the limits on the President’s power to use savings and realign funds, reaffirming the importance of congressional authority over the budget.
Unprogrammed Funds and Presidential Discretionary Funds:
- Unprogrammed funds, typically included in the GAA, are subject to the availability of excess revenue collections or new borrowings. The release of such funds is largely discretionary to the President, depending on the fiscal situation.

III. The Power to Approve or Veto Appropriation Bills

A. General Appropriations Act (GAA)

Legislative Process:
- The General Appropriations Bill (GAB), once passed by Congress, is sent to the President for approval. The GAA becomes the law authorizing the expenditure of public funds for the specific fiscal year.
Power to Veto:
- The President may veto the entire appropriations bill or specific provisions (via line-item veto). If vetoed, the previous year’s GAA is reenacted until a new appropriations law is passed.
Partial Veto: As previously mentioned, the line-item veto power allows the President to veto specific items in the budget while approving the rest of the appropriation bill, thereby preventing a total shutdown of government operations while exercising fiscal prudence.

B. Reenacted Budget

Effect of Reenacted Budget:
- If Congress fails to pass a new appropriations bill, the previous year's budget is automatically reenacted until a new one is approved. Under a reenacted budget, only amounts that were authorized in the previous year’s GAA may be spent, effectively limiting the President's ability to allocate new funds to projects that were not part of the previous budget.
Challenges and Implications of a Reenacted Budget:
- A reenacted budget constrains the President’s capacity to implement new programs or policies. It also limits capital outlay spending since only ongoing projects may continue receiving funding, barring any new appropriations for infrastructure or development initiatives.

IV. Special Appropriation Measures

A. Supplementary Appropriations

The President, through the DBM, may recommend to Congress a supplementary appropriations bill when additional funding is needed for unforeseen expenditures or emergencies not covered in the GAA. These measures must also specify where the funding will come from, ensuring that additional appropriations are backed by adequate revenue sources.

B. Special Funds

The President also has control over special purpose funds such as the Contingency Fund, the Calamity Fund, and other lump sum allocations in the budget. The use of these funds is generally discretionary but must comply with existing laws and regulations.

C. Presidential Power in Times of National Emergency

Under Section 23(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, in times of war or other national emergencies, Congress may grant the President emergency powers, including the ability to realign appropriations to address the emergency. This provision ensures that the executive has flexibility in utilizing the nation’s resources during crises.

V. Conclusion

The President's powers relative to appropriation measures reflect a delicate balance between executive discretion in the management of public funds and the constitutional limits imposed by the principle of legislative control over the budget. The powers of the President, including the preparation of the budget, line-item veto authority, and the management of savings, are subject to strict constitutional limitations aimed at ensuring transparency, accountability, and respect for the legislative power of appropriation. Jurisprudence, such as in the DAP case, underscores the importance of adhering to these constitutional boundaries.