LAMPVS.

SECOFBUDGETAND
MANAGEMENT
G.R.No.164987,April24,2012

FACTS
:ForconsiderationoftheCourtisanoriginalactionforcertiorariassailingthe
constitutionalityandlegalityoftheimplementationofthePriorityDevelopmentAssistanceFund
(PDAF)asprovidedforinRepublicAct(R.A.)9206ortheGeneralAppropriationsActfor2004
(GAAof2004).
PetitionerLawyersAgainstMonopolyandPoverty(LAMP),agroupoflawyerswhohavebanded
togetherwithamissionofdismantlingallformsofpolitical,economicorsocialmonopolyinthe
country.AccordingtoLAMP,theaboveprovisionissilentand,therefore,prohibitsanautomatic
ordirectallocationoflumpsumstoindividualsenatorsandcongressmenforthefundingof
projects.ItdoesnotempowerindividualMembersofCongresstopropose,selectandidentify
programsandprojectstobefundedoutofPDAF.
ForLAMP,thissituationrunsafoulagainsttheprincipleofseparationofpowersbecausein
receivingand,thereafter,spendingfundsfortheirchosenprojects,theMembersofCongressin
effectintrudeintoanexecutivefunction.Further,theauthoritytoproposeandselectprojects
doesnotpertaintolegislation.Itis,infact,anonlegislativefunctiondevoidofconstitutional
sanction,8and,therefore,impermissibleandmustbeconsiderednothinglessthan
malfeasance.
RESPONDENTSPOSITION:theperceptionsofLAMPontheimplementationofPDAFmust
notbebasedonmerespeculationscirculatedinthenewsmediapreachingtheevilsofpork
barrel.
ISSUES
:1)whetherornotthemandatoryrequisitesfortheexerciseofjudicialreviewaremetin
thiscaseand2)whetherornottheimplementationofPDAFbytheMembersofCongressis
unconstitutionalandillegal.
HELD
:
I.
Aquestionisripeforadjudicationwhentheactbeingchallengedhashadadirectadverseeffect
ontheindividualchallengingit.Inthiscase,thepetitionercontestedtheimplementationofan
allegedunconstitutionalstatute,ascitizensandtaxpayers.Thepetitioncomplainsofillegal
disbursementofpublicfundsderivedfromtaxationandthisissufficientreasontosaythatthere
indeedexistsadefinite,concrete,realorsubstantialcontroversybeforetheCourt.
LOCUSSTANDI:Thegistofthequestionofstandingiswhetherapartyallegessucha
personalstakeintheoutcomeofthecontroversyastoassurethatconcreteadversenesswhich
sharpensthepresentationofissuesuponwhichthecourtsolargelydependsforilluminationof
difficultconstitutionalquestions.Here,thesufficientinterestpreventingtheillegalexpenditureof
moneyraisedbytaxationrequiredintaxpayerssuitsisestablished.Thus,intheclaimthat

PDAFfundshavebeenillegallydisbursedandwastedthroughtheenforcementofaninvalidor
unconstitutionallaw,LAMPshouldbeallowedtosue.
Lastly,theCourtisoftheviewthatthepetitionposesissuesimpressedwithparamountpublic
interest.TheramificationofissuesinvolvingtheunconstitutionalspendingofPDAFdeserves
theconsiderationoftheCourt,warrantingtheassumptionofjurisdictionoverthepetition.
II.
TheCourtrulesinthenegative.
Indeterminingwhetherornotastatuteisunconstitutional,theCourtdoesnotlosesightofthe
presumptionofvalidityaccordedtostatutoryactsofCongress.Tojustifythenullificationofthe
laworitsimplementation,theremustbeaclearandunequivocal,notadoubtful,breachofthe
Constitution.Incaseofdoubtinthesufficiencyofproofestablishingunconstitutionality,the
Courtmustsustainlegislationbecausetoinvalidate[alaw]basedonxxxbaselesssupposition
isanaffronttothewisdomnotonlyofthelegislaturethatpasseditbutalsooftheexecutive
whichapprovedit.
Thepetitionismiserablywantinginthisregard.Noconvincingproofwaspresentedshowing
that,indeed,thereweredirectreleasesoffundstotheMembersofCongress,whoactually
spendthemaccordingtotheirsolediscretion.Devoidofanypertinentevidentiarysupportthat
illegalmisuseofPDAFintheformofkickbackshasbecomeacommonexerciseof
unscrupulousMembersofCongress,theCourtcannotindulgethepetitionersrequestfor
rejectionofalawwhichisoutwardlylegalandcapableoflawfulenforcement.
PORKBARREL:
TheMembersofCongressarethenrequestedbythePresidenttorecommendprojectsand
programswhichmaybefundedfromthePDAF.ThelistsubmittedbytheMembersofCongress
isendorsedbytheSpeakeroftheHouseofRepresentativestotheDBM,whichreviewsand
determineswhethersuchlistofprojectssubmittedareconsistentwiththeguidelinesandthe
prioritiessetbytheExecutive.33ThisdemonstratesthepowergiventothePresidentto
executeappropriationlawsandtherefore,toexercisethespendingperseofthebudget.
Asappliedtothiscase,thepetitionisseriouslywantinginestablishingthatindividualMembers
ofCongressreceiveandthereafterspendfundsoutofPDAF.Solongasthereisnoshowingof
adirectparticipationoflegislatorsintheactualspendingofthebudget,theconstitutional
boundariesbetweentheExecutiveandtheLegislativeinthebudgetaryprocessremainintact.
_______________

Porkbarrelsystemisunconstitutional
Unconstitutionality of the Pork Barrel System.

G.R.No.208566/G.R.No.208493/G.R.No.209251.November11,2013

GrecoAntoniousBedaB.Belgica,etal.Vs.Hon.ExecutiveSecretaryPaquitoN.Ochoa,
Jr,etal./SocialJusticeSociety(SJS)PresidentSamsonS.AlcantaraVs.Hon.FranklinM.
Drilon,etc.,etal./PedritoM.Nepomuceno,etc.Vs.PresidentBenignoSimeonC.Aquino
III,etal.
ConcurringOpinionC.J.Sereno,J.Carpio,J.Leonen.
ConcurringandDissentingOpinionJ.Brion.

"xxx.

TheIssuesBeforetheCourt

Basedonthepleadings,andasrefinedduringtheOralArguments,the
followingarethemainissuesfortheCourtsresolution:

I.ProceduralIssues.

Whetherornot(a)theissuesraisedintheconsolidatedpetitionsinvolveanactualand
justiciablecontroversy(b)theissuesraisedintheconsolidatedpetitionsaremattersofpolicy
notsubjecttojudicialreview(c)petitionershavelegalstandingtosueand(d)theCourts
DecisiondatedAugust19,1994inG.R.Nos.113105,113174,113766,and113888,entitled
PhilippineConstitutionAssociationv.Enriquez114(Philconsa)andDecisiondatedApril24,
2012inG.R.No.164987,entitledLawyersAgainstMonopolyandPovertyv.Secretaryof
BudgetandManagement115(LAMP)bartherelitigationoftheissueofconstitutionalityofthe
PorkBarrelSystemundertheprinciplesofresjudicataandstaredecisis.

II.SubstantiveIssuesontheCongressionalPorkBarrel.

Whetherornotthe2013PDAFArticleandallotherCongressionalPorkBarrelLawssimilar
theretoareunconstitutionalconsideringthattheyviolatetheprinciplesof/constitutional
provisionson(a)separationofpowers(b)nondelegabilityoflegislativepower(c)checksand
balances(d)accountability(e)politicaldynastiesand(f)localautonomy.

III.SubstantiveIssuesonthePresidentialPorkBarrel.

Whetherornotthephrases(a)andforsuchotherpurposesasmaybehereafterdirectedby
thePresidentunderSection8ofPD910,116relatingtotheMalampayaFunds,and(b)to
financethepriorityinfrastructuredevelopmentprojectsandtofinancetherestorationof
damagedordestroyedfacilitiesduetocalamities,asmaybedirectedandauthorizedbythe
OfficeofthePresidentofthePhilippinesunderSection12ofPD1869,asamendedbyPD
1993,relatingtothePresidentialSocialFund,areunconstitutionalinsofarastheyconstitute
unduedelegationsoflegislativepower.

Thesemainissuesshallberesolvedintheorderthattheyhavebeen
stated.Inaddition,theCourtshallalsotacklecertainancillaryissuesas
promptedbythepresentcases.

xxx.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionsarePARTLYGRANTED.Inviewoftheconstitutionalviolations
discussedinthisDecision,theCourthereby
declaresasUNCONSTITUTIONAL:

(a)theentire2013PDAFArticle

(b)alllegalprovisionsofpastandpresentCongressionalPorkBarrelLaws,suchasthe
previousPDAFandCDFArticlesandthevariousCongressionalInsertions,whichauthorize/d
legislatorswhetherindividuallyorcollectivelyorganizedintocommitteestointervene,
assumeorparticipateinanyofthevariouspostenactmentstagesofthebudgetexecution,such
asbutnotlimitedtotheareasofprojectidentification,modificationandrevisionofproject
identification,fundreleaseand/orfundrealignment,unrelatedtothepowerofcongressional
oversight

(c)alllegalprovisionsofpastandpresentCongressionalPorkBarrelLaws,suchasthe
previousPDAFandCDFArticlesandthevariousCongressionalInsertions,whichconferred
personal,lumpsumallocationstolegislatorsfromwhichtheyareabletofundspecificprojects
whichtheythemselvesdetermine

(d)allinformalpracticesofsimilarimportandeffect,whichtheCourtsimilarlydeemstobeacts
ofgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdictionand

(e)thephrases(1)andforsuchotherpurposesasmaybehereafterdirectedbythe
PresidentunderSection8ofPresidentialDecreeNo.910and(2)tofinancethepriority
infrastructuredevelopmentprojectsunderSection12ofPresidentialDecreeNo.1869,as
amendedbyPresidentialDecreeNo.1993,forbothfailingthesufficientstandardtestin
violationoftheprincipleofnondelegabilityoflegislativepower.

Accordingly,theCourtstemporaryinjunctiondatedSeptember10,2013isherebydeclaredto
bePERMANENT.Thus,thedisbursement/releaseoftheremainingPDAFfundsallocatedfor
theyear2013,aswellasforallpreviousyears,andthefundssourcedfrom(1)theMalampaya
Fundsunderthephraseandforsuchotherpurposesasmaybehereafterdirectedbythe
PresidentpursuanttoSection8ofPresidentialDecreeNo.910,and(2)thePresidential
SocialFundunderthephrasetofinancethepriorityinfrastructuredevelopmentprojects
pursuanttoSection12ofPresidentialDecreeNo.1869,asamendedbyPresidentialDecree
No.1993,whichare,atthetimethisDecisionispromulgated,notcoveredbyNoticeofCash
Allocations(NCAs)butonlybySpecialAllotmentReleaseOrders(SAROs),whetherobligated
ornot,areherebyENJOINED.TheremainingPDAFfundscoveredbythispermanentinjunction
shallnotbedisbursed/releasedbutinsteadrevertedtotheunappropriatedsurplusofthe
generalfund,whilethefundsundertheMalampayaFundsandthePresidentialSocialFund
shallremainthereintobeutilizedfortheirrespectivespecialpurposesnototherwisedeclared
asunconstitutional.

Ontheotherhand,duetoimproperrecourseandlackofpropersubstantiation,theCourthereby
DENIESpetitionersprayerseekingthat
theExecutiveSecretaryand/ortheDepartmentofBudgetandManagementbeorderedto
providethepublicandtheCommissiononAuditcompletelists/schedulesordetailedreports
relatedtotheavailmentsandutilizationofthefundssubjectofthesecases.

Petitionersaccesstoofficialdocumentsalreadyavailableandofpublicrecordwhicharerelated
tothesefundsmust,however,notbeprohibitedbutmerelysubjectedtothecustodians
reasonableregulationsoranyvalidstatutoryprohibitiononthesame.Thisdenialiswithout
prejudicetoapropermandamuscasewhichtheyortheCommissiononAuditmaychooseto
pursuethroughaseparatepetition.

TheCourtalsoDENIESpetitioners'prayertoordertheinclusionof
thefundssubjectofthesecasesinthebudgetarydeliberationsofCongressasthesameisa
matterlefttotheprerogativeofthepoliticalbranchesof
government.

Finally,theCourtherebyDIRECTSallprosecutorialorgansofthe
governmentto,withintheboundsofreasonabledispatch,investigateandaccordinglyprosecute
allgovernmentofficialsand/orprivateindividualsforpossiblecriminaloffensesrelatedtothe
irregular,improperand/orunlawfuldisbursement/utilizationofallfundsunderthePorkBarrel
System.

ThisDecisionisimmediatelyexecutorybutprospectiveineffect.

SOORDERED.