PDAF Digest

8/11/2019 PDAF Digest

1/8

* FACTS:In the Philippines, the pork barrel (a term of American-English origin) has beencommonly referred to as lump-sum, discretionary funds of embers of the!egislature ("ongressional Pork #arrel)$ %o&e'er, it has also come to refer tocertain funds to the Eecuti'e$ he "ongressional Pork #arrel can be traced fromAct *+ (Public orks Act of ./00), the 1upport for !ocal 2e'elopment Pro3ects

during the arcos period, the indanao 2e'elopment 4und and 5isayas2e'elopment 4und and later the "ountry&ide 2e'elopment 4und ("24) under the"ora6on A7uino presidency, and the Priority 2e'elopment Assistance 4und underthe 8oseph Estrada administration, as continued by the 9loria-acapagal Arroyo andthe present #enigno A7uino III administrations$

he Presidential Pork #arrel 7uestioned by the petitioners include the alampaya4und and the Presidential 1ocial 4und$ he alampaya 4und &as created as aspecial fund under 1ection :, Presidential 2ecree (P2) /.+ by then-President 4erdinand arcos to help intensify, strengthen, and consolidatego'ernment e;orts relating to the eploration, eploitation, and de'elopment ofindigenous energy resources 'ital to economic gro&th$ he Presidential 1ocial 4und&as created under 1ection .0, itle I5, P2 .:$='er the years, pork funds ha'e increased tremendously$ In .//


2/8

$) = the .// 2ecision of the 1upreme "ourt (the "ourt) on PhilippineConstitution Association v. Enriquez (Philconsa) and the 0+.0 2ecision of the "ourtonLawyers Against Monopoly and Poverty v. Secretary of Budget andManageent(LAMP) bar the re-litigation of the issue of constitutionality of the porkbarrel system under the principles of res !udicata and stare decisisB. Substantive Issues on the Congressional Por Barrel!

= the 0+.* P2A4 Article and all other "ongressional Pork #arrel !a&s similar to itare unconstitutional considering that they 'iolate the principles ofHconstitutionalpro'isions on.$) separation of po&ers0$) non-delegability of legislati'e po&er*$) checks and balances$) accountability?$) political dynasties


3/8

not terminate the contro'ersy nor diminish the useful purpose for itsresolution since said re)or/ is geared to0ards the 3456 budget7and not the3458 P$AF Article&hich, being a distinct subect /atter, re/ains legall+e9ective and eisting.either &ill the PresidentDs declaration that he hadalready abolished the P2A4 render the issues on P2A4 moot preciselybecause the Eecutive branch o) govern/ent has no constitutional

authorit+ to nulli)+ or annul its legal eistence.E'en on the assumption of mootness, ne'ertheless, 3urisprudence dictates thatthe Lmoot and academicD principle is not a magical formula that can automaticallydissuade the "ourt in resol'ing a case$ The Court 0ill decide cases7 other0ise/oot7 i):i$)There is a grave violation o) the Constitution:his is clear from thefundamental posture of petitioners C they essentially allege grave violations o)the Constitution 0ith res,ect to the ,rinci,les o) se,aration o) ,o0ers7non2delegabilit+ o) legislative ,o0er7 checs and balances7 accountabilit+and local autono/+.ii$)The ece,tional character o) the situation and the ,ara/ount ,ublicinterest is involved:his is also apparent from the nature of the interests

in'ol'ed C the constitutionalit+ o) the ver+ s+ste/ 0ithin 0hich signicanta/ounts o) ,ublic )unds have been and continue to be utili1ed ande,endedundoubtedly presents a situation of eceptional character as &ell as amatter of paramount public interest$ he present petitions, in fact, ha'e beenlodged at a ti/e 0hen the s+ste/;s hen the constitutional issue raised re(uires )or/ulation o) controlling,rinci,les to guide the bench7 the bar7 and the ,ublic:his is applicablelargely due to the ,ractical need )or a denitive rulingon the systemDsconstitutionality$ here is a compelling need to formulate controllingprinciples relati'e to the issues raised herein in order to guide the bench, the bar,and the public, not 3ust for the epeditious resolution of theanticipated disallo&ance cases, but more importantly, so that the go'ernment maybe guided on ho& public funds should be utili6ed in accordance &ith constitutionalprinciples$i'$)The case is ca,able o) re,etition +et evading revie0.his is called for bythe recognition that the ,re,aration and ,assage o) the national budget is7b+ constitutional i/,ri/atur7 an a9air o) annual occurrence.he myriad ofissues underlying the manner in &hich certain public funds are spent, if not resol'edat this most opportune time, are capable of repetition and hence, must not e'ade

3udicial re'ie&$


4/8

0$)-ES.The intrinsic constitutionalit+ o) the Por Barrel S+ste/! is notan issue de,endent u,on the 0isdo/ o) the ,olitical branches o)govern/ent but rather a legal one 0hich the Constitution itsel) hasco//anded the Court to act u,on.1crutini6ing the contours of the systemalong constitutional lines is a task that the political branches of go'ernment areincapable of rendering precisely because it is an eercise of 3udicial po&er$ ore

importantly, the present "onstitution has not only 'ested the 8udiciary the right toeercise 3udicial po&er but essentially makes it a duty to proceed there&ith (1ection., Article 5III of the ./: "onstitution)$*$-ES.Petitioners ha'e suBcient locus standito @le the instant cases$ Petitionersha'e come before the "ourt in their respecti'e capacities as citi6en-tapayers andaccordingly, assert that they dutifully contribute to the co;ers of the ational

reasury$ As ta,a+ers7 the+ ,ossess the re(uisite standing to (uestion thevalidit+ o) the eisting Por Barrel S+ste/! under 0hich the taes the+,a+ have been and continue to be utili1ed.hey are bound to su;er from theunconstitutional usage of public funds, if the "ourt so rules$ In'ariably, tapayersha'e been allo&ed to sue &here there is a claim that public funds are illegallydisbursed or that public money is being deMected to any improper purpose, or that

public funds are &asted through the enforcement of an in'alid or unconstitutionalla&, as in these cases$oreo'er, as citi6ens, petitioners ha'e e7ually ful@lled the standing re7uirementgi'en that the issues the+ have raised /a+ be classied as /atters o)transcendental i/,ortance7 o) overreaching signicance to societ+7 or o),ara/ount ,ublic interest. he "oA "hairpersonDs statement during the =ralArguments that the present contro'ersy in'ol'es not FmerelyG a systems failurebut a complete breakdo&n of controls ampli@es the seriousness of the issuesin'ol'ed$ Indeed, of greater import than the damage caused by the illegalependiture of public funds is the mortal &ound inMicted upon the fundamental la&by the enforcement of an in'alid statute$$) %'.=n the one hand, res judicatastates that a 3udgment on the merits in apre'ious case rendered by a court of competent 3urisdiction &ould bind asubse7uent case if, bet&een the @rst and second actions, there eistsan identit+of parties, of sub3ect matter, and of causes of action$ This re(uiredidentit+ is not attendanthereto since Philconsa and LAMPin'ol'ed constitutionalchallenges against the .// "24 Article and 0++ P2A4 Article respecti'ely$%o&e'er, the cases at bar call for a broader constitutional scrutiny of the entirePork #arrel 1ystem$ Also, the ruling in !AP is essentially a dismissal based on aprocedural technicality C and, thus, hardly a 3udgment on the merits$ Thus7 res

judicata cannot a,,l+.=n the other hand, the doctrine of stare decisisis a bar to any attempt to re-litigate &here the sa/e (uestionsrelating to the same e'ent ha'e been putfor&ard by the parties similarly situated as in a pre'ious case litigated and decidedby a competent court$ Absent an+ ,o0er)ul countervailing considerations7lie cases ought to be decided alie.Philconsa &as a limited response toa separation of po&ers problem, speci@cally on the propriety of conferring post-enactment identi@cation authority to embers of "ongress$ 'n the contrar+7 the,resent cases call )or a /ore holistic ea/ination o) ?a@ the inter2relationbet&een the "24 and P2A4 Articles &ith each other, formati'e as they areof the entire Pork #arrel 1ystem as 0ell as ?b@ the intra2relationof post-enactment measures contained &ithin a particular "24 or P2A4 Article, including


5/8

not only those related to the area of pro3ect identi@cation but also to the areas offund release and realignment$ he compleity of the issues and the broader legalanalyses herein &arranted may be, therefore, considered as a ,o0er)ulcountervailing reason against a 0holesale a,,lication o) the stare decisis,rinci,le.In addition, the "ourt obser'es that the Philconsaruling 0as actuall+ riddled

0ith inherent constitutional inconsistencies 0hich si/ilarl+ countervailagainst a )ull resort to stare decisis. 1ince the "ourt no& bene@ts fromhindsight and current @ndings (such as the "oA >eport), it must ,artiall+ abandonits ,revious ruling in Philconsainsofar as it validated the ,ost2enact/entidentication authorit+ o) e/bers o) Congress on the guise that thesa/e 0as /erel+ reco//endator+.Again, since LAMP &as dismissed on a procedural technicality and, hence, has notset any controlling doctrine susceptible of current application to the substanti'eissues in these cases, stare decisis&ould not apply$B. Substantive Issues on the Congressional Por Barrel!.$)-ES. At its core, legislators have been consistentl+ accorded ,ost2enact/ent authorit+ to identi)+ the ,roectsthey desire to be funded through

'arious "ongressional Pork #arrel allocations$ Nnder the 0+.* P2A4 Article, thestatutory authority of legislators to identify pro3ects post-9AA may be construedfrom 1pecial Pro'isions . to * and the second paragraph of 1pecial Pro'ision $!egislators ha'e also been accorded ,ost2enact/ent authorit+in the areasof )und release(1pecial Pro'ision ? under the 0+.* P2A4Article) and realign/ent (1pecial Pro'ision , paragraphs . and 0 under the 0+.*P2A4 Article)$

hus,legislators have been, in one form or another, authori6ed to participate inthe various o,erational as,ects o) budgeting, including the e'aluation of&ork and @nancial plans for indi'idual acti'ities and the regulation and release offunds,in violation o) the se,aration o) ,o0ers ,rinci,le $ hat the saidauthority is treated as merely recommendatory in nature does not alter

its unconstitutional tenor since the prohibition co'ers any role inthe implementation or enforcement of the la&$ o&ards this end, the "ourt musttherefore abandon its ruling in Philconsa$ he "ourt also points out that respondentsha'e failed to substantiate their position that the identi@cation authorityof legislators is only of recommendatory import$In addition to declaring the 0+.* P2A4 Article as &ell as all other pro'isions of la&&hich similarly allo& legislators to &ield any form of post-enactment authority inthe implementation or enforcement of the budget, the "ourt also declaredthat in)or/al ,ractices7 through 0hich legislators have e9ectivel+ intrudedinto the ,ro,er ,hases o) budget eecution7 /ust be dee/ed as acts o)grave abuse o) discretionamounting to lack or ecess of 3urisdiction and,hence, accorded the sa/e unconstitutional treat/ent$0$)-ES.he 0+.* P2A4 Articleviolates the ,rinci,le o) non2delegabilit+ sincelegislators are e9ectivel+ allo0ed to individuall+ eercise the ,o0ero) a,,ro,riation, 0hich7as settled in Philconsa, is lodged in Congress.hepo&er to appropriate must be eercised only through legislation, pursuant to1ection 0/(.), Article 5I of the ./: "onstitution &hich statesJ o money shall bepaid out of the reasury ecept in pursuance of an appropriation made by la&$

he ,o0er o) a,,ro,riation, as held by the "ourt in Bengzon v. Secretary of"ustice and #nsular Auditor, in'ol'es ?a@ setting a,art b+ la0 a certain


6/8

su/ from the public re'enue for?b@ a s,ecied ,ur,ose. Under the 3458P$AF Article7 individual legislators are given a ,ersonal lu/,2su/)und from &hich the+ are able to dictate?a@ ho0 /uchfrom such fund &ouldgo to ?b@ a s,ecic ,roect or beneciar+that they themsel'es also determine$1ince these t0o acts co/,rise the eercise o) the ,o0er o)a,,ro,riationas described in Bengzon, and gi'en that the 3458 P$AF Article

authori1es individual legislators to ,er)or/ the sa/e, undoubtedly,saidlegislators have been con)erred the ,o0er to legislate 0hich theConstitution does not7 ho0ever7 allo0.*$)-ES. Nnder the 3458 P$AF Article7thea/ount o) P36.Billiononl+ a,,ears as a collective allocation li/itsince the said amount&ould be further di'ided among indi'idual legislators &ho &ould thenrecei'e personal lump-sum allocations and could, after the 9AA ispassed, e;ecti'ely appropriate P2A4 funds based on their o&n discretion$ Astheseinter/ediate a,,ro,riations are /ade b+ legislators onl+ a)ter theDAA is ,assedand hence7 outside o) the la07it means that the actual ite/so) P$AF a,,ro,riation 0ould not have been 0ritten into theDeneral A,,ro,riations Bill and thus e9ectuated 0ithout veto

consideration$ his kind of lump-sumHpost-enactment legislati'e identi@cationbudgeting system fosters the creation of a budget &ithin a budget&hich subverts the ,rescribed ,rocedure o) ,resent/ent and conse(uentl+i/,airs the President;s ,o0er o) ite/ veto$ As petitioners aptly point out, thePresident is forced to decide bet&een (a) accepting the entire P0$ / #illion P2A4allocation &ithout kno&ing the speci@c pro3ects of the legislators, &hich may or maynot be consistent &ith his national agenda and (b) re3ecting the &hole P2A4 to thedetriment of all other legislators &ith legitimate pro3ects$E'en &ithout its post-enactment legislati'e identi@cation feature,the 3458 P$AFArticle 0ould re/ain constitutionall+


7/8

%o&e'er, the "ourt cannot completely agree that the same post-enactmentauthority andHor the indi'idual legislatorDs control of his P2A4 per se&ould allo&him to perpetrate himself in oBce$ his is a matter &hich must be analy6ed basedon particular facts and on a case-to-case basis$Also, &hile the "ourt accounts for the possibility that the close operational proimitybet&een legislators and the Eecuti'e department, through the formerDs post-

enactment participation, may a;ect the process of impeachment, this matterlargely borders on the domain of politics and does not strictly concern the Pork#arrel 1ystemDs intrinsic constitutionality$ As such, it is an improper sub3ect of

3udicial assessment$?$) %'. 1ection 0epresentati'es C and in someyears, e'en the 5ice-President C &ho do not represent any locality, recei'e funding

from the "ongressional Pork #arrel as &ell$he "ourt also obser'es that this concept of legislator control underlying the "24and P2A4 conMicts &ith the functions of the 'arious !ocal 2e'elopment "ouncils(!2"s) &hich are already legally mandated to assist the corresponding sanggunianin setting the direction of economic and social de'elopment, and coordinatingde'elopment e;orts &ithin its territorial 3urisdiction$ "onsidering that !2"s areinstrumentalities &hose functions are essentially geared to&ards managing locala;airs, their programs, policies and resolutions should not be o'erridden norduplicated by indi'idual legislators, &ho are national oBcers that ha'e no la&-making authority ecept only &hen acting as a body$C. Substantive Issues on the Presidential Por Barrel!

-ES.Regarding the Malampaya Fund:he phrase and for such other purposesas may be hereafter directed by the President under 1ection : of P2 /.+constitutes an undue delegation of legislati'e po&er insofar as it does not la+do0n a su=cient standard to ade(uatel+ deter/ine the li/its o) thePresident;s authorit+ 0ith res,ect to the ,ur,ose )or 0hich theala/,a+a Funds /a+ be used.As it reads, the said phrase gi'es the President&ide latitude to use the alampaya 4unds for any other purpose he may direct and,in e;ect, allo&s him to unilaterally appropriate public funds beyond the pur'ie& ofthe la&$


8/8

That the subect ,hrase /a+ be conned onl+ to energ+ resourcedevelo,/ent and e,loitation ,rogra/s and ,roects o) the govern/ent!under the ,rinci,le o) ejusdem generis7meaning that the general &ord orphrase is to be construed to include C or be restricted to C things akinto, resembling, or of the same kind or class as those speci@cally mentioned, isbelied b+ three ?8@ reasonsJ @rst, the phrase energy resource de'elopment and

eploitation programs and pro3ects of the go'ernment states a singular andgeneral classand hence, cannot be treated as a statutory reference of speci@cthings from &hich the general phrase for such other purposes may be limitedKsecond, the said ,hrase also ehausts the class it re,resents, namely energyde'elopment programs of the go'ernmentK and, third, the Eecutive de,art/enthas used the ala/,a+a Funds )or non2energ+ related ,ur,oses under thesubect ,hrase, thereby contradicting respondentsD o&n position that it is limitedonly to energy resource de'elopment and eploitation programs and pro3ects ofthe go'ernment$%o&e'er, the rest of 1ection :, insofar as it allo&s for the use of the alampaya4unds to @nance energy resource de'elopment and eploitation programs andpro3ects of the go'ernment, remains legally e;ecti'e and subsisting$

Regarding the Presidential Social Fund% 1ection .0 of P2 .:

Documents

PDAF Digest