You are on page 1of 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 the public 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.

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

of the separation of powers of the Congress and the Judiciary for the Courts to inquire on the wisdom of enactment of PDAF which contains direct releases implementing agencies such as LGUs and NGOs to meet the much arising needs of appropriations of funds to these institutions. It is also settled that the "limitation on the power of judicial review to actual cases and controversies" carries the assurance that "the courts will not intrude into areas committed to the other branches of govemment."

Morever, it has been settled in the case of Philconsa that the authority granted the Members of the Congress to propose and select projects was already upheld. And what has been settled by the court should not be disturbed by filing of the same case with the same issue by the principle of stare decisis.

It is not the statute per se where the evil of corruption arises but with the improper implementation of funds. Once however, such identification and the corresponding

appropriation therefore is done, the legislative act is completed and it ends there. Thereafter, the Executive is behoved, with exclusive responsibility that the project has been properly carried. Furthermore, it is the Congress who best knows the needs of their constituents therefore, its power to appropriate funds by enacting laws cannot be abridge absence sufficient evidence that would warrant its unconstitutionality but not included upon it is the validity of the one lawmaker to have the sole discretion and power to choose the beneficiary of the fund. The PDAF law must be construe that the power to choose in whom the fund should be appropriated is the power of the whole and entire Congress.

It is now therefore submitted for decision on the constitutionality of PDAF on the following reasons: (a) the petitioner failed to justify that the issue is ripe for judicial inquiry; (b) that such inquiry violates the stare decisis principle that the case which has settled by the Supreme Court must be followed and not disturbed and; (c) that such inquiry is not a question of law but a question of the wisdom of the Legislature in passing the Bill. With this, petition must be DENIED and PDAF is held as constitutional.

You might also like