President's power during the budget execution stage
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqkt0Ir2xZOqcaqW2jrgTEJzJSNylj2rUTpFfI0jDBIFoEt-K40pjDdY3lxV0PhMghyphenhyphentNeualMwyQFlKzN1yFklMzlUfYEbKEds1NmXomcsoSpKUoWm1HHsffPFKbWkoJQ0FK-wVjinE0/s640/President+of+the+Philippines.jpg)
As pointed out in Gonzales v. Raquiza:
In a strict sense, appropriation has been defined ‘as nothing more than the legislative authorization prescribed by the Constitution that money may be paid out of the Treasury,’ while appropriation made by law refers to ‘the act of the legislature setting apart or assigning to a particular use a certain sum to be used in the payment of debt or dues from the State to its creditors. (G.R. No. 29627, December 19, 1989)
On the other hand, the President, in keeping with his duty to faithfully
execute the laws, has sufficient discretion during the execution of the budget
to adapt the budget to changes in the country’s economic situation. He could
adopt a plan like the DAP for the purpose. He could pool the savings and
identify the PAPs to be funded under the DAP. The pooling of savings pursuant
to the DAP, and the identification of the program, activity or projects to be
funded under the DAP did not involve appropriation in the strict sense because
the money had been already set apart from the public treasury by Congress
through the GAAs. In such actions, the Executive cannot be said to have
usurped the power vested in Congress under Section 29(1), Article VI of the
Constitution. (G.R. No. 209287, July 01, 2014, citing Daniel Tomassi, “Budget
Execution,” in Budgeting and Budgetary Institutions, ed. Anwar Shah,
Washington: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World
Bank, 2007), p. 279, available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org.)