LAWYERS AGAINST MONOPOLY and POVERTY (LAMP) vs.

THE SECRETARY OF
BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, THE TREASURER OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE
COMMISSION ON AUDIT and THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE and THE SPEAKER
OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
G.R. No. 165987
April 24 2012
FACTS: This is a petition for cetriorari assailing the constitutionality of the Priority
Development Assistance Fund as provided in R.A. 9206 or the General Appropriations Act
(GAA) for 2004. Petitioners Lawyers Against Monopoly and Poverty (LAMP) sought the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order to enjoin
respondent Secretary of Department of Budget and Management (DBM) from making and
thereafter releasing budgetary allocations to the individual members of Congress as pork
barrel funds out of PDAF. LAMP insists on the absence of an expressed provision and the
flaws in (1) the implementation of the DBM illegally made and directly released budgetary
allocations out of PDAF in favor of the members of the Congress and that (2) the latter do
not possess the power to propose, select and identify which projects are to be actually
funded by PDAF. They further contend that the same act runs afoul against the principle of
separation of powers because the Congress is granted with an executive function, and
cannot directly spend funds appropriated by them. The respondents then argued that the
petition cannot stand on inconclusive media reports, and argued that the Congress
authority to propose and identify priority projects are merely recommendatory in nature.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the mandatory requisites for the exercise of judicial review are met in the
case at bar;
2. Whether or not the implementation of PDAF by the members of the Congress is
unconstitutional and illegal.
RULING:
1.
Yes. The petitioners are standing as citizens and taxpayers, in which they have
proved that they are adversely affected in appropriation proceedings and expenditure of
public funds. This affords ripeness, definite and substantial controversy before the
Court.
2.
No. The Court believes that these allegations lack substantation. Newspapers and
electronic reports cannot be appreciated. No convincing proof was presented showing
that there were direct releases of funds to the Members of the Congress, an actually
spent them to their sole discretion, and not even a documentation of the disbursement
of funds by the DBM in favor of the former to be able to convince the court on their
claims. It is also convinced that the law is outwardly legal and capable for lawful
enforcement. Further, there is no infringment of the principle of separation of powers,
considering that the budget execution and allocation of funds come from the Executive
Branch, and the crafting of an appropriation act is on the authority of the Legislative
department. DBM lays down the guidelines for the disbursement of the fund. The
Members of Congress are then requested by the President to recommend projects and
programs which may be funded by PDAF, and the list of the same will be sent back to
the Executive branch for their discretion of spending of the budget.