is this you? Claim your profile.
is this you? Claim your profile.
+ Get 10 Free Contacts a Month
It's free and takes 30 seconds
Augusto Syjuco, Bayan Muna and the United Filipino Consumers and Commuters Incorporated.
Two suits challenging the government's national budget were also dismissed by the SC. The petitions filed by former Iloilo Representative Augusto Syjuco had sought to invalidate the General Appropriations Act for 2015 and Republic Act 10652, a law providing a supplemental budget for the national government. Syjuco argued that the 2015 National Expenditure Program (NEP) in the GAA contained pork barrel funds, in contravention of the Court's decision which declared unconstitutional the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF). Syjuco on his budget petition claimed that the Grassroots Participatory Budgeting (GPB) program is a clone of the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) which the Court also has declared unconstitutional. He also questioned the definition of "savings" contained in the 2015 GAA. Syjuco said the term "savings" refers to a surplus in budget after the completion or payment of a particular line item budget included in the general appropriations law. Syjuco noted that if the money was never used in the first place, then it cannot be classified as savings. Syjuco claimed that the respondents expanded the definition of savings in the NEP and 2015 General Appropriations Bill to allow allow the Executive branch to "whimsically and arbitrarily discontinue, stop or fail to begin the implementation of an approved PAP (program, activity or project) even in the early parts of the fiscal year to forcibly turn the appropriations for such into savings." For Syjuco's second petition on the supplemental budget, the Court ruled that Syjuco had not shown any substantial grounds to have the supplemental budget declared unconstitutional.
The SC dismissed for lack of merit the two petitions filed by former Iloilo representative Augusto Syjuco Jr. questioning the then budget proposals.
For the first petition (2015 budget), the Court said it was premature because "it does not allege any specific expenditure, fund release or any executive act or issuance to this effect." "Petitioner (Syjuco), suing as taxpayer, has not claimed any injury to him or to taxpayers in general but has only posed hypothetical or feigned problems, or mere academic questions. On the petition against the supplemental budget, the Court noted that Syjuco did not show "substantial grounds" to have it declared unconstitutional other than quoting the SC decisions on the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP).
Other petitioners include former Iloilo representative Augusto Syjuco, Jr., the United Filipino Consumers and Commuters Inc. (UFCC); and lawmakers representing Bayan Muna party-list.
These petitions are filed by former Iloilo representative Augusto Syjuco Jr. and militant group Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan).
In separate petitions, former Iloilo representative Augusto Syjuco Jr. and militant groups urged the SC to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) against fare increases at the LRT Line 1 (LRT-1), LRT Line 2 (LRT-2) and MRT Line 3 (MRT-3).
LRT-1 traverses from Baclaran, Parañaque City to Roosevelt, Quezon City; LRT-2 traverses from Recto, Manila to Santolan, Pasig City; and MRT-3 traverses from North Avenue, Quezon City to Edsa-Taft Avenue, Pasay City. Syjuco also urged the SC to declare Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) Department Order 2014-14, which mandates the increases as "illegal and unconstitutional." He said the DOTC has committed "grave abuse of authority" in the approval of the fare increase because it was implemented without "due process." Syjuco said that if the fare increase will not be stopped, it will bring about "irreparable damage" to the public.