8/13/2019 PDAF Constitutionality
1/3
Dissenting Opinion on the Unconstitutionality of PDAF
Dissenting Opinion:
With the infamous issues that this Country is now facing, an
action assailing the constitutionality
and legality of the implementation of the "Priority Development
Assistance Fund" (PDAF) as
provided for in the General Appropriations Act for 2004 (GAA
2004) has been commenced and
comes to this Highest Court for decision. PDAF emanates from the
Pork Barrel System which is
a part of an appropriation of government spending meant for
localized projects and secured
solely or primarily to bring money to a representative's
district. Such funds are discretionary fund
of the Members of the Legislature which require prior
consultation with the Representative of the
District before the direct release to the implementing Agency
concerned. The PDAF Article
provides realignment of funds to any expense category was
expressly allowed, with the sole
condition that no amount shall be used to fund personal services
and other personnel benefits.
During the implementation of PDAF formal participation of
non-governmental organizations
(NGO) in the implementation of government projects were allowed
by the Legislature. Also, in
the recent PDAF Article, it is now allow LGUs to be identified
as implementing agencies if they
have the technical capability to implement the projects.
Legislators were also further allowed to
identify programs/projects, except for assistance to indigent
patients and scholarships, outside of
his legislative district provided that he secures the written
concurrence of the legislator of the
intended outside-district, endorsed by the Speaker of the House.
Finally, any realignment of
PDAF funds, modification and revision of project identification,
as well as requests for release of
funds, were all required to be favorably endorsed by the House
Committee on Appropriations
and the Senate Committee on Finance, as the case may be.
Over the years, from Martial Law Era and with different names by
succeeding administration,
PDAF has involved Billions of public funds and now, has been
scrutinized by keen eye of thepublic as the main issue in the
Country which arose from the whistleblowers accusations on the
alleged Pork Barrel Scam involving lawmakers and the business
woman named Janet Lim
Napoles.
8/13/2019 PDAF Constitutionality
2/3
With this, comes now to this Court is the issue whether or not
the 2013 PDAF Article and all
other Congressional Pork Barrel Laws similar thereto are
unconstitutional.
In determining the constitutionality of a statute, first, the
case of Farinas v. The Executive
Secretary held that:
Every statute is presumed valid. The presumption is that the
Legislature intended to enact a
valid, sensible and just law and one which operates no further
than may be necessary to
effectuate the specific purpose of the law. Every presumption
should be indulged in favour of the
constitutionality and the burden of proof is on the party
alleging that there is a clear and
unequivocal breach of constitution.
Hence, liberal interpretation of the constitutionality of the
legislation should be adopted absent
clear and unequivocal breach of constitution. The petitioner
must have substantiated that the
principles of separation of powers, non-delegability of
legislative power, checks and balances,
accountability and local autonomy. Because indeed, there has
been no abridgement of the
separation of powers because it is still the Congress who have
identified the appropriation of
funds. Also, the legislative had not been delegated neither to
the LGU or NGOs as beneficiary
because they are but mere implementors of projects and funds
appropriated by the Congress.
Furthermore, the accountability and check and balance is also
not disturbed since it is the
Executive through the Commission on Audit has the power and
responsibility to guard and check
the funds releases to this implementing agencies. Furthermore,
the alleged statement by the
petitioner that PDAF is the prima facie pattern of abuse must be
also substantiated with proof
and evidence to support its allegation. Without this
substantiation, the Court cannot validly
determine the truthfulness of such allegations. Hence, there is
no existence of an actual and
justiciable controversy in these cases. The case is not ripe for
adjudication hence, no legal
compliance with requisites for judicial inquiry.
Second, in the case of LAMP v. The Secretary of Budget and
Management, the court held that
the courts are not concerned with the wisdom, justice, policy,
or expediency of a statute. It is the
power of the Congress to appropriate funds according to their
discretion and it will be a violation
