Law Dictionary

Question VI-B, Political Law, 2017 Bar Exam

Notice: The following suggested answers simulate those that a bar examinee may provide as an answer to a bar exam question. Thus, specific citations (i.e., republic acts, articles/sections, jurisprudence, etc.) are not provided because it is not required in the bar exam. For purposes other than answering the bar exam, please be reminded that proper referencing or legal citation is required.

Question VI-B, Political Law, 2017 Bar Exam

The Executive Department has accumulated substantial savings from its appropriations. Needing ₱3,000,000.00 for the conduct of a plebiscite for the creation of a new city but has no funds appropriated soon by the Congress for the purpose, the COMELEC requests the President to transfer funds from the savings of the Executive Department in order to avoid a delay in the holding of the plebiscite.

May the President validly exercise his power under the 1987 Constitution to transfer funds from the savings of the Executive Department, and make a cross-border transfer of ₱3,000,000.00 to the COMELEC by way of augmentation? Is your answer the same if the transfer is treated as aid to the COMELEC? Explain your answer. (4%)

Suggested Answer:

(a) No. Answer

Under the 1987 Constitution, transferring of appropriations is prohibited. However, by way of exception, the President, and other certain officials, by law, is authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations. Rule

In the case at bar, the President intends to transfer appropriations outside of the Executive Department and into a Constitutional Commission – the COMELEC. This is not permitted under the 1987 Constitution. Apply

Thus, the president may not validly exercise his power under the 1987 Constitution to transfer funds from savings of the Executive Department to the COMELEC by way of augmentation. Conclusion

(b) My answer is the same even if it is treated as aid to the COMELEC. This is because such cross-border transfer of funds is expressly prohibited by the 1987 Constitution.

Disclaimer: All information is for educational and general information only. These should not be taken as professional legal advice or opinion. Please consult a competent lawyer to address your specific concerns. Any statements or opinions of the author are solely his own and do not reflect that of any organization he may be connected.

Suggested Answers

Question X, Political Law, 2018 Bar Exam

Ascertain the constitutionality of the following acts: (2.5% each) (a) An investigation conducted by the Ombudsman against a Commissioner of the Commission on Audit for

Question B.15, Labor Law, 2019 Bar Exam

On December 1, 2018, GHI Co., an organized establishment, and Union J, the exclusive bargaining agent therein executed a five (5)-year collective bargaining agreement (CBA)

Top Read

Video Lessons

Legal Maxims

non bis in idem

Latin maxim. • “not twice for the same” (Tacas v. Cariaso, G.R. No. L-37406, August 31, 1976)

Read more


Grave coercions, Revised Penal Code

1. Concept and legal basis Art. 286. Grave coercions. – The penalty of prisión correccional and a fine not exceeding One hundred thousand pesos (₱100,000)

You cannot copy content of this page