G.R. No. 235310 , October 11, 2022
HON. ANICETO D. BERTIZ III, AS A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND AS A TAXPAYER, PETITIONER, VS. HON. SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

The case stemmed from the Land Transportation Office’s (LTO) procurement for the 2017 Driver’s License Card Project. For the 2016 fiscal year, Congress appropriated PHP 587,497,000.00 for driver’s license issuance. The LTO awarded a contract for only PHP 187,080,000.00, resulting in savings of PHP 341,713,000.00. For the 2017 fiscal year, a new appropriation of PHP 573,450,000.00 was enacted. The LTO then combined the 2016 savings with a portion of the 2017 appropriation to set an Approved Budget for Contract of PHP 836,000,000.00 for the 2017 project, which was awarded to Dermalog with Nettix and CFP Joint Venture.
Petitioner, a Member of the House of Representatives, filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition assailing the constitutionality of using the 2016 savings for the 2017 project. He argued that the Invitation to Bid did not specify the fiscal year of the “General Fund 101” source and that no law authorized such expenditure, rendering the project without legally appropriated funds. He also alleged the bidding was rigged and sought to enjoin its implementation.

ISSUE

The primary issue was whether the LTO acted with grave abuse of discretion in utilizing the surplus funds from the 2016 General Appropriations Act (GAA) to fund the 2017 Driver’s License Card Project.

RULING

The Court, through the Concurring Opinion of Justice Lazaro-Javier, upheld the LTO’s action and found no grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic rests on the explicit text of the GAA and the constitutional separation of powers. Section 65 of the 2016 GAA provides that appropriations for Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE) and Capital Outlays “shall be available for release and obligation… for a period extending to one fiscal year after the end of the year in which such items were appropriated.” This provision unequivocally authorized the use of the 2016 appropriation for the specified purpose until the end of 2017. Therefore, applying the 2016 savings to the 2017 project for the same purpose—driver’s license card procurement—was legally permissible.
The ruling further emphasized respect for the co-equal branches of government. Congress, holding the power of the purse, enacted the GAA with the specific continuation rule. The Executive, through the LTO, exercised its power to spend and execute the budget by maximizing the use of appropriated funds for public benefit. The Court’s role is not to impede these constitutional functions but to intervene only upon a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, which was absent. Petitioner’s claim of a rigged bidding was deemed a factual question improper for certiorari. Thus, the petition failed.