8/10/2019 Argument 1 and Prayer

1/2

THE ACT CONSTITUTES REVISION

The Act abolishing the presidential and congressional pork barrel system, aimedto be passed through Peoples Initiative, is unconstitutional. Section 25 5!, Article "I o#

the $%&' (onstitution provides that)

No law shall be passed authorizing an trans!er o! appropriations" howe#er$

the %resident$ the %resident o! the Senate$ the Spea&er o! the House o!

Representati#es$ the Chie! 'usti(e o! the Supre)e Court$ and the heads o!

Constitutional Co))issions )a$ b law$ be authorized to aug)ent an ite) in the

general appropriations law !or their respe(ti#e o!!i(es !ro) sa#ings in other ite)s o!

their respe(ti#e appropriations*+

The people constitute their petition as a revision to our constitution *ith regards

to allocation o# #unds because their main goal is to abolish the Pork +arrel System in the

Philippines, *hich constitutes a big change in our (onstitution. verything *ill change

including the realignment o# #unds coming #rom the -eneral Appropriation Act and alsothe proects that constitutes those #unds.

/ith regards to amendment o# the constitution through the Peoples Initiative,

Article 0"II, Section 2 o# the $%&' (onstitution provides that)

Se(tion ,* A)end)ents to this Constitution )a li&ewise be dire(tl

proposed b the people through initiati#e upon a petition o! at least twel#e per

(entu) o! the total nu)ber o! registered #oters$ o! whi(h e#er legislati#e distri(t

)ust be represented b at least three per (entu) o! the registered #oters therein* No

a)end)ent under this se(tion shall be authorized within !i#e ears !ollowing the

rati!i(ation o! this Constitution nor o!tener than on(e e#er !i#e ears therea!ter*The Congress shall pro#ide !or the i)ple)entation o! the e-er(ise o! this right*

It clearly states that amendment o# the (onstitution is the only po*er o# peoples

initiative upon a petition. It does not state that Peoples Initiative can do a revision to our(onstitution. /hat the la* states *ill al*ays prevail. The content o# the petition o#

abolishing Pork +arrel System constitutes o# a revision because it a##ects many

provisions in our (onstitution *ith regards to public #unds. It is deemed to be

unconstitutional #rom the start because under the decision o# the Supreme (ourt *ithregards to the Pork +arrel System)

1the (ongressional Pork +arrel *hich is herein de#ined as a kind o# lump3sum,discretionary #und *herein legislators, either individually or collectively organi4ed into

committees, are able to e##ectively control certain aspects o# the #unds utili4ation through

various post3enactment measures andor practices. In particular, petitioners consider theP6A7, as it appears under the 28$9 -AA, as (ongressional Pork +arrel since it is, inter

alia, a post3enactment measure that allo*s individual legislators to *ield a collective

po*er.:

8/10/2019 Argument 1 and Prayer

2/2

It clearly sho*s thatthe Supreme Court declared Pork Barrel unconstitutional

because it allows lawmakers the final say in the use of lump-sum funds even after

the GAA is approved by Congress. The Supreme Court did not ban all the Pork

Barrel. It merely banned lump-sum, discretionary appropriations intended as pork

and the post-budget approval participation of lawmakers.

Section 7 of the Petition to Abolish Pork Barrel provides:

(d) Any member of Congress, or his agent or representative, who directly or

indirectly intervenes or participates in the implementation of any appropriation law

through any post-enactment act or practice, including but not limited to identification

or endorsement of projects, beneficiaries or contractors, or assuming authority or

exercising influence in the release, allocation or realignment of appropriated funds

The violation also considers even projects earmarked during the budget

deliberations as pork barrel that should be banned. The people must respect the

decision of the Supreme Court and file another case for clarification of the decision

of the Court other that making a petition to abolish the Pork Barrel.

LACK OF SEPARABILITY CLAUSE

The Act abolishing the Pork Barrel System does not have a separability

clause. With our petition to declare the act unconstitutional, the act will automatically

be declared null and void because it lacks a separability clause. Separability clauseis defined as:

Separability Clause. If any provision of this Act or the application of such

provision to any person or circumstance is declared invalid, the remainder of the Act

or the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be

affected by such declaration.

/ithout this, the act could be scrapped o## even i# there is only one argument

present in declaring its unconstitutionality. It is a basic rule in la*3making to have a

separability clause. /e, as the petitioners, ;uestion the structure o# the proposed la* #orabolishment o# the Pork +arrel system