The structure of a government, if it is to endure beyond the fervor of revolution or the passion of momentary exigency, must rest upon the measured boundaries imposed by a written constitution and the necessary imbrication of its parts. The Philippine Constitution of 1987, like its American antecedent, reverberates with the philosophy of trias politica as it was conceived by Montesquieu and refined by Locke. Montesquieu, with the clarity of a jurist observing the decay of the Bourbon monarchy, warned against the fusion of powers which might disturb liberty, and Locke, ever practical, insisted that the executive and legislative spheres should be discrete lest tyranny arise in the folds of efficiency.

The cases concerning the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) pose a fundamental question: can the Executive, under the banner of the faithful execution of the laws, direct the reallocation of funds appropriated by Congress, or has it trespassed into territory jealously guarded by legislative fiat? The Supreme Court of the Philippines, in its decision in Araullo v. Aquino, G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014, answered with the measured disapproval characteristic of a judiciary seeking balance. It ruled that while the President did not usurp legislative power per se, the DAP included mechanisms of fund transfer and use that fell afoul of constitutional strictures.

The power of the purse is, by constitutional design, vested in the legislative branch. Article VI, 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.” Yet, it would be a mistake to read this clause as erecting a barricade insurmountable by exigency. Government is not machinery frozen in time, but a living mechanism subject to the pressures of history. As Mr. Madison observed in Federalist No. 58, the legislative power over the purse was designed to be a “most complete and effectual weapon” against executive overreach, but he did not suggest that the executive should be left defenseless in the face of emergencies.

In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), the United States Supreme Court wrestled with the breadth of executive power in times of necessity. Justice Jackson, in his concurring opinion, articulated a tripartite framework that has since become canonical: the President’s power is at its zenith when he acts pursuant to congressional authorization, exists in a twilight when Congress is silent, and is at its nadir when his acts contravene the express or implied will of Congress. This analytical scaffold has broad jurisprudential resonance and is apt for consideration in the Philippine context.

Applying that framework, the DAP could be seen as an attempt by the Executive to operate in the twilight zone — not directly contrary to congressional appropriation, but not clearly authorized by it either. Indeed, the Supreme Court noted that certain DAP releases were not in accordance with the General Appropriations Act, and thus exceeded the lawful bounds of executive discretion.

Yet this is not a novel problem in constitutional democracies. In Canada, the Federal Court in Friends of the Earth v. Canada (Governor in Council), [2008] F.C.J. No. 1183, recognized that the executive may, in some instances, possess limited discretion in implementing financial measures, provided such actions are grounded in statutory authority. Likewise, the High Court of Australia in Williams v. Commonwealth (No. 1), [2012] HCA 23, emphatically underscored that executive spending must have a statutory basis, reiterating the core principle that appropriation is not merely procedural but a substantive control on governmental activity.

Similarly, in the United Kingdom, while the Crown historically retained significant discretion over the royal revenues, the development of parliamentary sovereignty, enshrined through instruments such as the Bill of Rights 1689, placed the power of appropriation squarely in the hands of Parliament. The doctrine of necessity has never been allowed to override the principle that no public money may be spent without legislative consent, a principle articulated in R. v. Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, ex parte World Development Movement [1995] 1 W.L.R. 386.

Returning to the Philippine landscape, one must remember that constitutional powers are not isolated; they are in dynamic tension. The President, as Chief Executive, is charged with ensuring that the laws be faithfully executed (Art. VII, Sec. 17, 1987 Const.). This obligation cannot be performed in vacuo. Where Congress enacts a law, but through oversight, obstinacy, or political impasse renders its implementation impracticable by defunding the relevant agency, the President is caught between Scylla and Charybdis. To do nothing would be to disregard his constitutional duty; to act would risk judicial censure.

Justice Del Castillo, in his concurring opinion in Araullo, invoked the metaphor of a bridge between submerged islands — a colorful, but apt, description of the role the Executive must sometimes play in stitching together the frayed edges of legislative design. Indeed, there have been moments in American constitutional history where presidents have acted without appropriation, invoking necessity. George Washington’s suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, Thomas Jefferson’s arms purchases in 1807, and Abraham Lincoln’s expenditures in 1861 all occurred without prior congressional authorization. Though each act was subsequently ratified by Congress, the principle was clear: necessity may momentarily justify executive spending, but not without eventual legislative consent.

As Professor Sidak has noted in his seminal article, The President’s Power of the Purse, 1989 Duke L.J. 1162, the President is not a passive recipient of legislative intent. He must sign an appropriation bill before it becomes law. This act is not ceremonial, but substantive. It confers upon the Executive a participatory role in the fiscal architecture of the State. To that extent, the separation of powers is not a wall but a web — flexible, yet structured.

This interplay extends beyond the Executive and the Legislature. In the Philippines, the Supreme Court itself has engaged in quasi-legislative rule-making. The promulgation of the Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data, though justified under the Court’s expanded power to protect constitutional rights (Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5)), exhibits a degree of creative constitutionalism not unlike the executive’s actions under the DAP. As Professor Diane Desierto observes, the Court ventured into uncharted waters when it adopted these writs absent direct legislative action. See Diane Desierto, Universalizing Core Human Rights in the “New” ASEAN: A Reassessment of Culture and Development Justifications Against the Global Rejection of Impunity, 1 Asian-Pac. L. & Pol’y J. 1 (2010).

Thus, the DAP should not be viewed merely as a breach, but as a signal flare — illuminating the friction points of a constitutional democracy under stress. It serves as a reminder that no branch of government may arrogate unto itself the full measure of sovereignty, and that the Constitution, like the common law, must evolve through conflict, interpretation, and the inexorable pressure of facts.

Still, we must be wary. To condone executive spending without legislative appropriation under the broad rubric of expedience would be to surrender the guardrails of democratic accountability. Montesquieu’s warning remains potent: “When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person… there can be no liberty.”

Yet, to denude the President of all discretionary authority in times of fiscal exigency would be equally perilous. Governance is not mathematics; it is judgment under uncertainty. The Constitution, while a legal document, is also a political one. It speaks in generalities, not algorithms. In interpreting its provisions, courts must remember that “the life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience.” Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Common Law 1 (1881).

Accordingly, while the Supreme Court’s decision in the DAP cases is sound in its formalism, it leaves open a more nuanced question: what shall a President do when the ship of State sails into a storm and the legislature has not raised its sails? The Constitution must be both compass and anchor, guiding action but also preventing drift.

In my opinion, the faithful execution of laws, where not in direct contravention of legislative will, may justify the President’s temporary assumption of fiscal initiative — subject always to judicial review and subsequent legislative ratification. Anything more would invite Caesarism; anything less would paralyze the Republic.

So it is written, not for this moment alone, but for the future storms yet unseen.

_______________________

10 November 2014, London