Notes:

Beligca vs Ochoa

Pork Barrel – Lump sum discretionary (available for use at the discretion of the user) funds

2 kinds of Pork Barrel

1. Presidential Pork Barrel – Comprises of Malampaya Funds and Presidential Social Fund
(comprised of PAGCOR proceeds)
2. Congressional Pork Barrel – Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) which is integrated in
General Appropriations Act (GAA)

During that time each senators and congressmen were provided 200M and 70M, respectively.

Congressional Pork Barrel was held unconstitutional due to the following:

1. Violates the doctrine of Separation of Powers

Once the Budget is enacted the congress job is finished and their role is limited only to oversee the
budget is properly used and implemented. Then the executive branch will step in to execute it.

PDAF of congressmen were in-charge of (1) Identify the project of their choice, (2) Identify their
implementing agencies like DPWH and DAR and (3) choose the beneficiaries like Non-Government
Agencies (NGO’s) which may be bogus like Janet Lim Napoles NGO’s. This clearly violates the doctrine of
separation of powers as only

2. Violates the principle of Non-delegability of Legislative powers

The principle of Potestas delegata non delegari potest “What has been delegated may no longer be
further delegated”

The power of appropriation was delegated to the congress as a body by the constitution (Sec 1 Art 6
1987 Constitution) and by that it can no longer be further delegated to individual members of the
congress.

In the PDAF case the lump sum funds were provided to each members of the congress as they have
discretionary funds on where they will use it for their own projects which clearly violates the principle of
non-delegability of Legislative powers.

3. It impaired public accountability

The role of congress ends after the budget is enacted. The congress can only monitor or oversee the
funds being implemented properly by the executive department.

In the PDAF case the congress acted as both the enactment of the budget and at the same time
implementing body which impairs public accountability as a congress cannot oversee itself while
executing it.

4. Denied presidential item veto power

Sec. 27 Art 6 of 1987 Constitution discusses 2 kinds of Presidential Veto Power:

(par. 1) General Veto Power – General Rule: The president must sign the bill or veto the bill in its
entirely.

(par. 2) Item Veto – Exemption to the rule: Selective Veto where the president can veto a line item
provisions of the bill but is limited only to appropriation, revenue or tariff bills.

In the PDAF case the president is being denied to item veto as it cannot veto a provision that is lump
sum in nature which violates Sec. 27 Art. 6 of 1987 Constitution.

5. Subverted genuine local autonomy

Sec 25 Art. 2 of 1987 Constitution

“The state shall ensure the autonomy of local governments.”

In the Local Government Code, at every level of local governments created Local Development Council
which is tasked to identify and prioritize the projects to be implemented in the respective localities.
Local Devt Council comprised of Local Authority, stakeholders and NGO’s.

In the PDAF Case the congress as national officials who holds the lump sum discretionary powers
determine the implementing projects that should be promoting local autonomy but instead subverts it
through patronage politics.

Presidential Pork Barrel was declared unconstitutional due to:

1. Undue delegation of presidential power under sufficient standard test

2 Test of Valid Delegation of Power

1. Completeness Test - the law must be complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves
the legislature such that when it reaches the delegate, the only thing he will have to do is to
enforce it.

The remedy if there is gaps in the Law the remedy is to amend it. The congress can only
amend its own act.

2. Sufficient Standard Test - adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to determine the
boundaries of the delegate’s authority and prevent the delegation from running riot.

As long as there is standards must be determinate or atleast determinable to limit the

power to delegate the delegation becomes valid.

In the presidential pork barrel it comprised of Malampaya Funds for which proceeds will be provided to
Energy related purposes or such other purposes he may deemed fit and Presidential Social Fund which
related funds will be for Priority Development Infrastructure projects.

The Supreme Court held that there is undue delegation of presidential power as it failed to the test of
sufficient standard test. The clause provided by the law under the Executive Order for the Malampaya
Funds “other purposes he may deemed fit” and to Presidential Social Fund which “related funds will be
for priority development infrastructure projects.” Is too broad and lacks standards that anything can be
justified under and is an undeterminable delegation which cause its unconstitutionality.
Araullo vs President Aquino III

Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP Funds)

History:

During its 1st year of his term PNoy withhold public spending which made the economy sluggish, 2nd year
of his term adopted DAP funds to spur the growth of the economy which yielded positive results.

Issue: Whether or not DAP is Considered Unconstitutional?

Sec 25 Par 5 Art 6 of 1987 Constitution (Power of Augmentation)

Requisites:

1. There must be a law authorizing the transfer

2. Funds augmented must come from savings (Savings are funds remaining after determination
of completion of project or at the end of the fiscal yer)
3. Only within the department can be transferred to (Example Office of the President to
DepEd)