Institute of Politics and Governance

Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
(continued)

90. In the case of Philippine Constitution Association v. Gimenez (15 SCRA 479 [1965]), the Supreme Court explained the reason behind the rule on the title and the effect of non-compliance with the rule:

Parenthetically, it may be added that the purpose of the requirement that the subject of an Act should be expressed in its title is fully explained by Cooley, thus: (1) to prevent surprise or fraud upon the Legislature; and (2) to fairly apprise the people, through such publication of legislation that are being considered, in order that they may have the opportunity of being heard thereon by petition or otherwise, if they shall so desire.

x x x__________ x x x __________x x x

The requirement that the subject of an act shall be expressed in its title is wholly illustrated and explained in Central Capiz v. Ramirez, 40 Phil. 883. In this case, the question raised was whether Commonwealth Act 2784, known as the Public Land Act, was limited in its application to lands of the public domain or whether its provisions also extended to agricultural lands held in private ownership. The Court held that the act was limited to lands of the public domain as indicated in its title, and did not include private agricultural lands. The Court further stated that this provision of the Constitution expressing the subject matter of an Act in its title is not a mere rule of legislative procedure, directory to Congress, but it is mandatory. It is the duty of the Court to declare void any statute not conforming to this constitutional provision. (15 SCRA 479, 495-496; Emphasis added.)

The ruling in the quoted decision squarely applies to this case. The year 2000 GAA, insofar as it sought to amend the Local Government Code, must be declared void for not conforming to the constitutional requirement.

The Congress and the Executive, in passing and approving, respectively, the year 2000 GAA, and the respondents, in implementing the said year 2000 GAA, acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction as they transgressed the Constitution and the Local Government Code with respect to the reduction and withholding of the local governments’ IRA.

91. As shown by the discussion above, the Congress, the Executive, and the respondents, in particular, clearly committed a blatant transgression of the Constitution, the Local Government Code, and decisions of this Honorable Court with respect to the reduction and withholding of the IRA of local governments. Their acts constitute grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

92. The issue in this case is not the wisdom of the policy formulation and determination of the Legislative and the Executive. What is principally involved here is the legality, not the wisdom of the year 2000 GAA. This case concerns the enforcement of a right vis-à-vis policies already formulated and expressed not just in legislation but in the Constitution itself. Even assuming that the issue presented is political in nature, this Honorable Court is still not precluded from resolving it under the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon it by the Constitution, and considering that this case really necessitates the resolution of serious constitutional issues that are of public interest and national significance.

The year 2000 GAA’s reduction and withholding of the
IRA undermines the foundation of our local governance system
which is essential to the efficient operation of the government,
in general, and the development of the nation.

93. From the foregoing discussion, it can be seen that the IRA is a right of local governments and the people. Local governments are given the IRA, their share in the national taxes, because they share the burden of serving the public. With the enactment of the Local Government Code, local governments are lodged with more powers and responsibilities. It is only equitable that local governments share in the resources that are available for governance because they share the burden of governance. Contrary to the apparent misconception of some national government officials, the IRA is not “assistance” from the national government. It is that part of the public funds that the people, through the Constitution and the law, specifically allocated to finance the effective discharge of the powers and responsibilities that are assigned to the local governments.

94. It is clear that the right to the IRA has been violated. The automatic release of the IRA and the strict requirements for its allowable reduction are not merely arbitrary impositions made by the framers of the Constitution and the legislators. The special treatment of the IRA is rooted in three essential principles of local governance: decentralization, local autonomy and democracy. Any effort to undermine the preferred position of the IRA, therefore, adversely affects the very stability of the country’s system of local governance.

95. As adequately explained above, decentralization and devolution of functions and responsibilities necessarily entail the decentralization of government resources. Decentralization and devolution must be accompanied with provision for reasonably adequate resources for the local governments to discharge their powers and effectively carry out their functions. Hence, local governments are given the right to a just share in the national taxes – the IRA. The grant of reasonably adequate resources to local governments and the preferential treatment for these resources are necessary to ensure the autonomy of local governments. Thus, the Constitution and the Local Government Code mandates for the automatic release of the IRA in order to shield it from any form of interference and control from the national government.

96. Local autonomy, in turn, is indispensable in democratizing local governance. Local governments’ freedom from the control of central government authorities is essential to the local governments’ accountability to the people and their efficient operations as partners in national development.

97. More than the actual reduction in the amount of the IRA, this issue should be the nation’s primary concern. The unconstitutional reduction and withholding of the IRA undermines the very principles upon which our system of local governance is founded. Since the local governments are integral to our system of government, the emasculation of the government structures at the local level may ultimately weaken the entire governmental system. Ultimately, it is not simply about money, it is about governance.

Final Word

98. Assuming that the P10 Billion IRA placed under “unprogrammed funds” are released by the national government pending the resolution of this case, the constitutional issues raised in this Petition still require a definitive ruling from this Honorable Court. The release of the P10 Billion IRA will not make this case moot and academic as it is the manner of the appropriation and the manner of release that are put in issue.

99. Even assuming, only for the sake of argument, that this case can be considered moot and academic, the utmost significance of the issues raised in the Petition must be resolved lest the transgression that had been committed be repeated. The petitioners invoke the Honorable Court’s ruling in the case of Javier v. COMELEC, 144 SCRA 19 (1986). This Honorable Court should not disregard and in effect condone wrong on the simplistic and tolerant pretext that the case has become moot and academic.

100. The petitioners, for themselves and for others that they represent, respectfully ask the Honorable Court to grant the Petition.