HAS ANYONE NOTICED THIS? SC MISAPPLIED SECTION 25(5),ARTICLE VI, 1987 CONSTITUTION TO THE DAP: THE SC HELD: that the DAP is a valid Exercise of Executive Power since the SC said it did not involve an appropriation or any fund, and THEREFORE, that the President did NOT usurp the power vested in Congress under Section 29(1), Article VI of the Constitution, THAT BEING THE CASE, the SC erroneously applied Section 25, Article VI of the Constitution to the act of the President in implementing the DAP. because said Section 25 (5),Art. VI is found under the provision of the Constitution relative to the Legislative Department and is a limitation on the power of Congress to pass laws. It is not a limitation on Executive Power which is involved in the implementation of the DAP. SECTION 25. Article VI -legislative department (5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations. --- The SC seems to have been confused as to what provisions of the 1987 Constitution to the DAP cases, IT AGREED with the position of the OSG that the DAP is a valid exercise of Executive Power, and that President did not usurp the powers vested in Congress under Section 29(1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. So, in adopting the DAP, the President was not exercising any legislative power and hence he is not subject to and cannot be limited by Section 25(5), Article VI of the said Constitution, which is clearly a limitation of the power of Congress to pass laws. A mere reading of said Section makes this very clear.
Posted on: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:31:07 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015