Scribd
Upload
576 views

Confederation of Coconut Vs Aquino Digest

This case stems from Pres. Aquino's issuance of EO Nos. 179 & 180 regarding coconut levy assets. EO 179 calls for inventory and privatization of assets while EO 180 mandates reconveyance and utilization of assets for coconut farmers and industry development. Petitioner CCFOP argues the EOs are invalid. Petitioner claims: [1] The EOs violate the constitution by not treating coconut levy funds as public funds as settled by previous cases; [2] The government cannot execute its own decision without a writ from Sandiganbayan; and [3] Existing laws treat coconut levy funds as special funds appropriated by Congress under the constitution.

Uploaded by

Princess Rosshien Hortal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
576 views

Confederation of Coconut Vs Aquino Digest

This case stems from Pres. Aquino's issuance of EO Nos. 179 & 180 regarding coconut levy assets. EO 179 calls for inventory and privatization of assets while EO 180 mandates reconveyance and utilization of assets for coconut farmers and industry development. Petitioner CCFOP argues the EOs are invalid. Petitioner claims: [1] The EOs violate the constitution by not treating coconut levy funds as public funds as settled by previous cases; [2] The government cannot execute its own decision without a writ from Sandiganbayan; and [3] Existing laws treat coconut levy funds as special funds appropriated by Congress under the constitution.

Uploaded by

Princess Rosshien Hortal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Facts:

This case stemmed upon issuance of Pres. Aquino of EO Nos. 179 & 180.
Essentially, E.O. No. 179 calls for the inventory and privatization of all coco
levy assets. E.0. No. 180, on the other hand, mandates the reconveyance
and utilization of these assets for the benefit of coconut farmers and the
development of the coconut industry. Believing that the twin executive
orders are invalid, petitioner Confederation of Coconut Farmers
Organizations of the Philippines, Inc. (CCFOP) proceeded with the subject
petition with this Court.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

Violation of the Constitution

Clearly, both cases had definitely settled the public nature of coconut levy
funds, which included the CCSF and the CIDF. The most compelling
reasons to treat coconut levy funds as public funds are the fact that it was
raised through the State's taxing power and it was for the development of
the coconut industry as a whole and not merely to benefit individual
farmers.

No usurpation of judicial
power to execute its own
decision

Petitioner also argues that the release of coconut levy assets held by the
UCPB is in the nature of an execution. Thus, it surmises that there must be
a writ of execution from the Sandiganbayan before the government may
cause the release of the said assets.

Execution has been defined as a remedy afforded by law for the


enforcement of a judgment, its object being to obtain satisfaction of the
judgment on which the writ is issued. Being a remedy, it is thus optional on
23

the winning litigant and may avail it in case the judgment cannot be
enforced. In other words, a party litigant may choose to have a judgment
enforced and if for some reason he cannot do so, he may decide to avail of
the coercive measure of execution in order for the judgment to be realized.
A writ of execution was never meant to be a prerequisite before a judgment
may be enforced.
With the finality of the decision in COCOFED, there is no question that the
coconut levy assets are public funds. Thus, the government may take the
necessary steps to preserve them and to be able to utilize them. It does not
deprive the courts with its power to issue writs of execution because the
government may resort to it in case it encounters obstacles in the
enforcement of the decision.

Existing appropriation
law treating coconut levy
funds as special funds

The power of the purse lies with Congress. 24 This power is categorically
and explicitly stated by the fundamental law itself. Article VI, Section 29 of
the Constitution reads:

SECTION 29. (1) No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in
pursuance of an appropriation made by law.

(2) No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or


employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect,
church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any
priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher, or dignitary as such,
except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the
armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or
leprosarium.

(3) All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be
treated as a special fund and paid out for such purpose only. If the purpose
for which a special fund was created has been fulfilled or abandoned, the
balance, if any, shall be transferred to the general funds of the
Government.

The said provision provides for two classification of appropriation


measures-general and special appropriation. A general appropriation law is
one passed annually to provide for the financial operations of the entire
government during one fiscal period, whereas a special appropriation is
designed for a specific purpose. The revenue collected for a special
25

purpose shall be treated as a special fund to be used exclusively for the


stated purpose. This serves as a deterrent for abuse in the disposition of
special funds. The coconut levy funds are special funds allocated for a
26
specific purpose and can never be used for purposes other than for the
benefit of the coconut farmers or the development of the coconut industry.
Any attempt to appropriate the said funds for another reason, no matter
how noble or beneficial, would be struck down as unconstitutional.

An appropriation measure may be defined as a statute the primary and


specific purpose of which is to authorize the release of public funds. The
27

assailed issuances, however, did not create a new special fund. They were
issued pursuant to previous laws and jurisprudence which declared
coconut levy funds such as the CCSF and the CIDF as public funds for a
special purpose.
xxx

Thus, E.O. No. 179 does not create a new special fund but merely
reiterates that revenues arising out of or in connection with the privatization
of coconut levy funds shall be deposited in the SAGF. An automatic
appropriation law is not necessarily unconstitutional for as long as there are
clear legislative parameters on how the amounts appropriated are to be
disbursed.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy