ChanRobles Virtual law Library

EN BANC

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 4 2005.

G.R. No. 167882 ( Philippine Network of Rural Development Institutes, Inc. (Philnet-RDI), Katipunan ng mga Samahan ng mga Maralitang Mamamayan sa Kanayunan, Inc. (Kasama Ka), et al. vs. Emilia Boncodin, in her capacity as Secretary of the Department of Budget Management Arthur C. Yap, in his capacity as Secretary of Agriculture. )

This treats of the Petition for prohibition dated May 4, 2005, asking the Court to enjoin the Department of Agriculture (DA) and Department of Budget and Management (DBM) from reverting the Agricultural Competitiveness Enhancement Fund (ACEF) to the General Fund until after nine (9) years from the time it was made available to the agricultural sector.

A brief background is in order.

The ACEF was created pursuant to Republic Act No. 8178 (RA 8178) or the Agricultural Tariffication Act which took effect in 1996. The proceeds of the ACEF was intended to finance irrigation, farm-to-market roads, post-harvest equipment and facilities, credit, research and development, other marketing infrastructure, provision of market information, retraining, extension services, and other forms of assistance and support to the agricultural sector. Section 8 of RA 8178 provides that the ACEF shall have a life of nine (9) years, after which all remaining balances shall revert to the General Fund.

According to petitioners, the DBM has taken the position that the ACEF shall be reverted to the General Fund on June 19, 2005, nine (9) years from the effectivity of RA 8178. This position was allegedly made during a civil society forum on the ACEF held at the Ramon Mitra Hall of the House of Representatives in the presence of Rep. Mario Joyo Aguja of the AKBAYAN party list. It is petitioners' contention that the nine (9)-year life of the ACEF should be counted from 1999 when the ACEF was actually established or from 2000 when it was made available to the intended beneficiaries.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Manifestation and Motion in Lieu of Comment dated September 14, 2005, praying that the petition be dismissed for being moot and academic because the ACEF has not been reverted to the General Fund. Apparently, the DA referred the matter to the Department of Justice (DOJ) which accordingly rendered Opinion No. 24, S. 2005, stating that "[S]ince the proceeds for the ACEF only started to accrue on January 1, 1999, to say that the reckoning point for the life span of the ACEF should be from April 30, 1996, the date of the effectivity of RA 8178 which created the ACEF would deprive the agriculture sector, ACEF's beneficiaries, the assistance and support intended by the creation of the ACEF...."

Both the DA and the DBM concurred with the DOJ Opinion and agreed "not to revert the fund balance of the ACEF to the General Fund until December 31, 2007, or nine (9) years after a separate Fund Code has been assigned to the ACEF."

In view of the foregoing, there is no longer any actual controversy existing between the parties necessary for invoking the Court's judicial power.

WHEREFORE , the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for being moot and academic.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE