LAWYERS AGAINST MONOPOLY AND POVERTY (LAMP) vs.

THE SECRETARY OF BUDGET AND

MANAGEMENT
G.R. No. 164!"# A$%&' (4# ()1(
MENDO*A# +.,
FACTS:
For consideration of the Court is an original action for certiorari assailing the constitutionality and legality
of the implementation of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) as provided for in Repulic
Act (R!A!) "#$% or the &eneral Appropriations Act for #$$' (&AA of #$$')!
P(T)T)*+(R,S P*S)T)*+
Petitioner -a.yers Against /onopoly and Poverty (-A/P) is a group of la.yers .ho have anded
together .ith a mission of dismantling all forms of political0 economic or social monopoly in the country!
According to -A/P0 the provision in the &AA of #$$' is silent and0 therefore0 prohiits an automatic or
direct allocation of lump sums to individual senators and congressmen for the funding of pro1ects! )t does
not empo.er individual /emers of Congress to propose0 select and identify programs and pro1ects to e
funded out of PDAF (.hich .as the main feature of the previous 2por3 arrel2 systems)!
-A/P further decries the supposed fla.s in the implementation of the provision0 namely: 4) the D5/
illegally made and directly released udgetary allocations out of PDAF in favor of individual /emers of
Congress6 and #) the latter do not possess the po.er to propose0 select and identify .hich pro1ects are to
e actually funded y PDAF!
For -A/P0 this situation runs afoul against the principle of separation of po.ers ecause the /emers of
Congress cannot directly spend the funds0 the appropriation for .hich .as made y them! Further0 the
authority to propose and select pro1ects does not pertain to legislation! 2)t is0 in fact0 a non7legislative
function devoid of constitutional sanction02 and0 therefore0 impermissile and must e considered nothing
less than malfeasance!
R(SP*+D(+T,S P*S)T)*+
For their part0 the respondents contend that the petition miseraly lac3s legal and factual grounds!
Although they admit that PDAF traced its roots to CDF0 they argue that the former should not e e8uated
.ith 2por3 arrel02 .hich has gained a derogatory meaning referring 2to government pro1ects affording
political opportunism!2 )n the petition0 no proof of this .as offered! )t cannot e gainsaid then that the
petition cannot stand on inconclusive media reports0 assumptions and con1ectures alone! 9ithout
proative value0 media reports cited y the petitioner deserve scant consideration especially the
accusation that corrupt legislators have allegedly proposed cuts or slashes from their por3 arrel!
)SS:(S:
(4) 9hether or not the mandatory re8uisites for the e;ercise of 1udicial revie. are met in this case
(#) 9hether or not the implementation of PDAF y the /emers of Congress is unconstitutional and
illegal
<(-D:
(4) =(S!
-i3e almost all po.ers conferred y the Constitution0 the po.er of 1udicial revie. is su1ect to limitations0
to .it: (4) there must e an actual case or controversy calling for the e;ercise of 1udicial po.er6 (#) the
person challenging the act must have the standing to 8uestion the validity of the su1ect act or issuance6
other.ise stated0 he must have a personal and sustantial interest in the case such that he has
sustained0 or .ill sustain0 direct in1ury as a result of its enforcement6 (>) the 8uestion of constitutionality
must e raised at the earliest opportunity6 and (') the issue of constitutionality must e the very lis mota of
the case!
ACT:A- CAS( *R C*+TR*?(RS=! An aspect of the 2case7or7controversy2 re8uirement is the re8uisite
of 2ripeness!2A 8uestion is ripe for ad1udication .hen the act eing challenged has had a direct adverse
effect on the individual challenging it! )n this case0 the petitioner contested the implementation of an
alleged unconstitutional statute0 as citi@ens and ta;payers! A finding of unconstitutionality .ould
necessarily e tantamount to a misapplication of pulic funds .hich0 in turn0 cause in1ury or hardship to
ta;payers! This affords 2ripeness2 to the present controversy!
-*C:S STA+D)! Anent locus standi0 2the rule is that the person .ho impugns the validity of a statute
must have a personal and sustantial interest in the case such that he has sustained0 or .ill sustained0
direct in1ury as a result of its enforcement! Thus0 ta;payers have een allo.ed to sue .here there is a
claim that pulic funds are illegally disursed or that pulic money is eing deflected to any improper
purpose0 or that pulic funds are .asted through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional la.!
<ere0 the sufficient interest preventing the illegal e;penditure of money raised y ta;ation re8uired in
ta;payersA suits is estalished! Thus0 in the claim that PDAF funds have een illegally disursed and
.asted through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional la.0 -A/P should e allo.ed to sue!
-AST-=! the Court is of the vie. that the petition poses issues impressed .ith paramount pulic interest!
The ramification of issues involving the unconstitutional spending of PDAF deserves the consideration of
the Court0 .arranting the assumption of 1urisdiction over the petition!
(#)
+*! )n determining .hether or not a statute is unconstitutional0 the Court does not lose sight of the
presumption of validity accorded to statutory acts of Congress! To 1ustify the nullification of the la. or its
implementation0 there must e a clear and une8uivocal0 not a doutful0 reach of the Constitution! )n case
of dout in the sufficiency of proof estalishing unconstitutionality0 the Court must sustain legislation
ecause Bto invalidate Ca la.D ased on ; ; ; aseless supposition is an affront to the .isdom not only of
the legislature that passed it ut also of the e;ecutive .hich approved it!E
The petition is miseraly .anting in this regard! +o convincing proof .as presented sho.ing that0 indeed0
there .ere direct releases of funds to the /emers of Congress0 .ho actually spend them according to
their sole discretion! Devoid of any pertinent evidentiary support that illegal misuse of PDAF in the form of
3ic3ac3s has ecome a common e;ercise of unscrupulous /emers of Congress0 the Court cannot
indulge the petitionerAs re8uest for re1ection of a la. .hich is out.ardly legal and capale of la.ful
enforcement!