You are on page 1of 10

CASE DIGEST: Belgica v. Executive Secretary (G.R. Nos. 208566, 208493 and 5. Release of Funds.

All request for release of funds shall be supported by the documents prescribed
under Special Provision No. 1 and favorably endorsed by the House Committee on Appropriations and
209251, 2013) the Senate Committee on Finance, as the case may be. Funds shall be released to the implementing
agencies subject to the conditions under Special Provision No. 1 and the limits prescribed under Special
2. Project Identification. Identification of projects and/or designation of beneficiaries shall conform to the
priority list, standard or design prepared by each implementing agency: PROVIDED, That preference shall
be given to projects located in the 4th to 6th class municipalities or indigents identified under the MHTS- II. SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES, HELD AND RATIO
PR by the DSWD. For this purpose, the implementing agency shall submit to Congress said priority list, A. Congressional Pork Barrel
standard or design within ninety (90) days from effectivity of this Act. WON the 2013 PDAF Article and all other Congressional Pork Barrel Laws similar to it are unconstitutional
considering that they violate the principles of/constitutional provisions on…
All programs/projects, except for assistance to indigent patients and scholarships, identified by a
member of the House of Representatives outside of his/her legislative district shall have the written 1.) …separation of powers
concurrence of the member of the House of Representatives of the recipient or beneficiary legislative
district, endorsed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
YES. At its core, legislators have been consistently accorded post-enactment authority (a) to identify the
projects they desire to be funded through various Congressional Pork Barrel allocations; (b) and in the
3. Legislator’s Allocation. The Total amount of projects to be identified by legislators shall be as follows: areas of fund release and realignment. Thus, legislators have been, in one form or another, authorized to
participate in “the various operational aspects of budgeting,” violating the separation of powers
principle. That the said authority is treated as merely recommendatory in nature does not alter
a. For Congressional District or Party-List Representative: Thirty Million Pesos (P30,000,000) for soft its unconstitutional tenor since the prohibition covers any role in the implementation or enforcement of
programs and projects listed under Item A and Forty Million Pesos (P40,000,000) for infrastructure the law. Informal practices, through which legislators have effectively intruded into the proper phases of
projects listed under Item B, the purposes of which are in the project menu of Special Provision No. 1; budget execution, must be deemed as acts of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
and jurisdiction and, hence, accorded the same unconstitutional treatment.

b. For Senators: One Hundred Million Pesos (P100,000,000) for soft programs and projects listed under
Item A and One Hundred Million Pesos (P100,000,000) for infrastructure projects listed under Item B, the 2.) …non-delegability of legislative power
purposes of which are in the project menu of Special Provision No. 1.

YES. The 2013 PDAF Article violates the principle of non-delegability since legislators are effectively
Subject to the approved fiscal program for the year and applicable Special Provisions on the use and allowed to individually exercise the power of appropriation, which, as settled in Philconsa, is lodged in
release of fund, only fifty percent (50%) of the foregoing amounts may be released in the first semester Congress.
and the remaining fifty percent (50%) may be released in the second semester.

4. Realignment of Funds. Realignment under this Fund may only be allowed once. The Secretaries of 3.) …checks and balances
Agriculture, Education, Energy, Interior and Local Government, Labor and Employment, Public Works and
Highways, Social Welfare and Development and Trade and Industry are also authorized to approve
realignment from one project/scope to another within the allotment received from this Fund, subject to YES. Under the 2013 PDAF Article, the amount of P24.79 Billion only appears as a collective allocation
the following: (i) for infrastructure projects, realignment is within the same implementing unit and same limit. Legislators make intermediate appropriations of the PDAF only after the GAA is passed and hence,
project category as the original project; (ii) allotment released has not yet been obligated for the original outside of the law. Thus, actual items of PDAF appropriation would not have been written into the
project/scope of work; and (iii) request is with the concurrence of the legislator concerned. The DBM General Appropriations Bill and are thus put into effect without veto consideration. This kind of lump-
must be informed in writing of any realignment within five (5) calendar days from approval thereof: sum/post-enactment legislative identification budgeting system fosters the creation of a “budget within
PROVIDED, That any realignment under this Fund shall be limited within the same classification of soft or a budget” which subverts the prescribed procedure of presentment and consequently impairs
hard programs/projects listed under Special Provision 1 hereof: PROVIDED, FURTHER, That in case of the President’s power of item veto. As petitioners aptly point out, the President is forced to decide
realignments, modifications and revisions of projects to be implemented by LGUs, the LGU concerned between (a) accepting the entire P24. 79 Billion PDAF allocation without knowing the specific projects of
shall certify that the cash has not yet been disbursed and the funds have been deposited back to the BTr. the legislators, which may or may not be consistent with his national agenda and (b) rejecting the whole
PDAF to the detriment of all other legislators with legitimate projects.
Even without its post-enactment legislative identification feature, the 2013 PDAF Article would remain
Any realignment, modification and revision of the project identification shall be submitted to the House constitutionally flawed since the lump-sum amount of P24.79 Billion would be treated as a mere funding
Committee on Appropriations and the Senate Committee on Finance, for favorable endorsement to the source allotted for multiple purposes of spending (i.e. scholarships, medical missions, assistance to
DBM or the implementing agency, as the case may be. indigents, preservation of historical materials, construction of roads, flood control, etc). This setup
connotes that the appropriation law leaves the actual amounts and purposes of the appropriation for

in effect. this very same concept of post-enactment authorization runs afoul of President of the Philippines” under Section 12 of PD 1869.” Therefore. to Section 8 of PD 910 – it lies independently unfettered by any sufficient standard of the delegating law. the conduct of oversight would be tainted as said legislators.” Allowing legislators to intervene in the various phases of project implementation renders them susceptible to taking undue Regarding the Presidential Social Fund: Section 12 of PD 1869. Thus. while it is possible that the close operational proximity between legislators and the Executive construe the same. since there appears to be no standing law which crystallizes the policy on political dynasties for enforcement. allows him to unilaterally appropriate public funds beyond the purview of the law. the phrase “to finance the impeachment. As a result. “priority infrastructure development projects” and hence. instrumentalities whose functions are essentially geared towards managing local affairs. would. the same post-enactment authority and/or the individual legislator’s control of his PDAF per development projects”. in effect. The law does not supply a definition of particular facts and on a case-to-case basis. as amended by PD 1993. This is a matter which must be analyzed based on infrastructure project he may so determine as a “priority”. Also. As such. this matter largely borders on the domain of politics and does not strictly concern the priority infrastructure development projects” must be stricken down as unconstitutional since – similar Pork Barrel System’s intrinsic constitutionality. who are vested (b) “to finance the priority infrastructure development projects and to finance the restoration of with post-enactment authority. policies and resolutions of LDCs should not be overridden nor duplicated by individual legislators. The Court also observes that this concept of legislator control underlying the CDF and PDAF conflicts with the functions of the various Local Development Councils (LDCs). YES. a district representative of a highly-urbanized metropolis gets the same amount of funding as a district representative of a far-flung rural province which would be relatively “underdeveloped” compared to the former. through the former’s post-enactment participation. 6. 5. As it reads. even the Vice-President – who do not represent any locality. be checking on activities in which they damaged or destroyed facilities due to calamities. however. The programs. Regarding the Malampaya Fund: The phrase “and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President” under Section 8 of PD 910 constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power as it does not lay down a sufficient standard to adequately determine the limits of the President’s 4. indicates that the Presidential Social Fund may be used “to finance the priority infrastructure However. Article II of the 1987 Constitution is considered as not self-executing due to the qualifying phrase “as may be defined by law. The Court. To a certain extent. as may be directed and authorized by the Office of the themselves participate.) …political dynasties NO. the above-stated argument on this score is largely speculative since it has not been properly demonstrated how the Pork Barrel System would be able to propagate political dynasties. the said phrase gives the President wide latitude to use the Malampaya Funds for any other purpose he may direct and. without taking into account the specific interests and peculiarities of the district the legislator represents. Section 26.) …local autonomy YES. In any event. leaves the President without any guideline to Also. does not readily indicate a discernible item which may be subject to the President’s power of item veto. To add.” The gauge of PDAF and CDF allocation/division is based solely on the fact of office. Article VI of the 1987 Constitution which provides that: “…[A Senator or Member of the Presidential Social Fund House of Representatives] shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the Government for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account of his office. therefore. To note. as amended by PD 1993. This gives him carte blancheauthority to use the same fund for any se would allow him to perpetrate himself in office. what rouses graver scrutiny is that even Senators and Party-List Representatives – and in some years. B. who are national officers that have no law- making authority except only when acting as a body. receive funding from the Congressional Pork Barrel as well. finds an inherent defect in the system which actually belies the avowed intention of “making equal the unequal. it is an improper subject of judicial assessment.) …accountability authority with respect to the purpose for which the Malampaya Funds may be used. may affect the process of a classification since the said term could pertain to any kind of facility. and .further determination and. Substantive Issues on the “Presidential Pork Barrel” WON the following phrases are unconstitutional insofar as they constitute undue delegations of legislative power: (a) “and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President” under Section 8 of PD 910 relating to the Malampaya Funds. relating to the Section 14. YES. the Court must defer from ruling on this issue. the delimitation of a project as one of “infrastructure” is too broad of department. advantage of their own office.

SECRETARY LEONARDO-DE CASTRO. PAREDES. VELASCO. and legality of the implementation of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) as provided for in EFREN CARAG. LEO LUIS MENDOZA. Petitioners. PERLAS-BERNABE. . thereafter. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT. ANATALIA BUENAVENTURA. No. JUSTICE ABRAHAM SARMIENTO. REYES. a group of lawyers who have banded together with a mission of DE GUZMAN. releasing budgetary SANTOS. PEDRO CASTILLO. ANTONIO P.. BERSAMIN. SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES in representation of the Members PEREZ. ELEAZAR ANGELES. and THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE and the VILLARAMA. RUDEGELIO TACORDA. VICTOR AVECILLA. JR. of the Congress. 164987 April 24. BRION. ROLANDO ARZAGA. MARIA dismantling all forms of political. Respondents SERENO..: and counsel.. Consultants. and BARTOLOME FERNANDEZ. JR... CEFERINO PADUA. AQUILINO PIMENTEL. MANAGEMENT..A. EMMANUEL SANTOS. Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Baguio City Promulgated: EN BANC LAWYERS AGAINST MONOPOLY G. represented by its DECISION Chairman Present: MENDOZA. JR. CORONADO. Board of . economic or social monopoly in the country. ROGELIO KARAGDAG. C.R. SEN. of a writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order to enjoin respondent Secretary of the MARIO REYES. THE SECRETARY OF BUDGET AND ABAD. Members.) 9206 or the General Appropriations Act for 2004 (GAA of 2004). JR. J. THE TREASURER OF THE PHILIPPINES. [1] also sought the issuance LUZ ARZAGA-MENDOZA. TERESITA Department of Budget and Management (DBM) from making. JJ.. ALFREDO Republic Act (R. 2012 AND POVERTY (LAMP). ALBERTO ABELEDA. GREGELY FULTON ACOSTA.J.versus DEL CASTILLO. AQUILINO PIMENTEL III. GEN. NAPOLEON CORONA. ROMEO ECHAUZ. Petitioner Lawyers CARPIO. MENDOZA. JR. Against Monopoly and Poverty (LAMP). and. For consideration of the Court is an original action for certiorari assailing the constitutionality GALILEO BRION. PERALTA. JR.

That a maximum of ten percent (10%) of the implementation of the PDAF provision becomes legally infirm and constitutionally repugnant. or indirectly to individual Members of Congress.000. including the President of the Senate and the receiving and. select and identify which present even an iota of proof that the DBM Secretary has been releasing lump sums from PDAF directly projects are to be actually funded by PDAF.a function which essentially and exclusively pertains to the Executive priority programs and projects or to fund the required counterpart for foreign-assisted programs and projects: PROVIDED. the authority to propose and select projects does not pertain to legislation. the the allocations authorized herein may be realigned to any expense class. It does not be equated with pork barrel. That such amount shall be released directly to the Department. [5] Hence. Use and Release of the Fund.[2] On April 26. That propose and identify projects to be funded and to perform the actual spending of the fund. It is.327. and 2) the latter do not possess the power to propose. Failing to Members of Congress. In other words. Although they admit that PDAF traced its roots to CDF. if deemed necessary: PROVIDED FURTHERMORE. which is the only function given to the Congress by the Constitution.000. Respondents Position Petitioners Position For their part. [8] and. FURTHER. spending funds for their chosen projects. the Members of Congress The GAA of 2004 contains the following provision subject of this petition: cannot virtually tell or dictate upon the Executive Department how to spend taxpayers money. prohibits an automatic or direct grounds. the perceptions of LAMP on the implementation of PDAF must not DBM illegally made and directly released budgetary allocations out of PDAF in favor of individual be based on mere speculations circulated in the news media preaching the evils of pork barrel. both parties were required to submit their respective memoranda. to comment on the petition. thereafter. in fact. select and identify which projects are to be 1. authorized allocations by district may be used for procurement of rice and other basic commodities which shall be purchased from the National Food Authority.allocations to individual members of Congress as pork barrel funds out of PDAF. no proof of this was offered. to the claim that Members of has become legally defunct under the present state of GAA 2004. These individual Members of Congress is a casus omissus signifying an omission intentionally made by facts have no attributes of sufficient notoriety or general recognition accepted by the public without Congress that this Court is forbidden to supply. this situation runs afoul against the principle of separation of powers because in On September 14. The amount herein appropriated shall be used to fund actually implemented and funded . [3] In its memorandum. LAMP is of the conclusion that the pork barrel qualification. the petition falls short of its cause.A. the Reply thereto. 9206 of CY 2004). . the Court required respondents. the respondents[10] contend that the petition miserably lacks legal and factual According to LAMP. 2004. 2005. The proposal and identification of the projects do not involve the making Xxxxx of laws or the repeal and amendment thereof. they cannot directly spend the funds. In previous GAAs. does not include Special Provision the power of the Members thereof to individually propose. the Court should decline the petitioners plea to take judicial notice of the supposed deliberate intent on the part of the Executive and the Congress to scrap and do away with the pork iniquity of PDAF because there is no concrete proof that PDAF. In their individual capacities. 2005. Nothing alone.[9] By allowing the Members of Congress to receive direct allotment from the fund. a non-legislative PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE FUND For fund requirements of priority development programs and projects. therefore. to be subjected to judicial notice. [t]he omission of the PDAF provision to specify sums as allocations to dirty money for unscrupulous lawmakers and other officials who tend to misuse their allocations. It cannot be gainsaid then funded out of PDAF. the above provision is silent and. select and identify programs and projects to be affording political opportunism. Hence. to implementing agency or Local Government Unit concerned:PROVIDED. [11] they argue that the former should not allocation of lump sums to individual senators and congressmen for the funding of projects. media reports cited by the petitioner deserve scant consideration of the sort is now seen in the present law (R. impermissible and must be considered hereunder ₱8. is a source of barrel system. appropriation for which was made by them. [7] Further. [6] Congress are beneficiaries of commissions (kickbacks) taken out of the PDAF allocations and releases and preferred by favored contractors representing from 20% to 50% of the approved budget for a LAMP further decries the supposed flaws in the implementation of the provision. as indicated function devoid of constitutional sanction. Verily. which has gained a derogatory meaning referring to government projects empower individual Members of Congress to propose. the Members of Congress in effect Speaker of the House of Representatives. Suffice it to say. in the guise of pork barrel. Without probative value. a fortiori. the power of appropriation granted to Congress as a collegial body. petitioner filed a intrude into an executive function. No. LAMP likewise aimed to stop the National Treasurer and the Commission on Audit (COA) from enforcing the questioned provision. On April 7. therefore.[4] In other words.[12] In the petition. For LAMP. namely: 1) the [13] particular project. LAMP insists especially the accusation that corrupt legislators have allegedly proposed cuts or slashes from their pork that [t]he silence in the law of direct or even indirect participation by members of Congress betrays a barrel. This applies. said allocation and identification of projects were the main that the petition cannot stand on inconclusive media reports.00 nothing less than malfeasance. assumptions and conjectures features of the pork barrel system technically known as Countrywide Development Fund (CDF).

An aspect of the case-or-controversy requirement is the requisite of ripeness. [22] ripeness is generally treated in terms of actual injury to the plaintiff. the sufficient interest preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation required in taxpayers suits is established. and second. This affords ripeness to the present controversy. the practice ofdirect allocation and release of funds to the propose and identify priority projects because this was merely recommendatory in nature. otherwise stated. In our jurisdiction. the allegations in the petition do not aim to obtain sheer legal opinion in the nature of The respondents urge the Court to dismiss the petition for its failure to establish factual and advice concerning legislative or executive action. Hence.[15] where CDF was described as an imaginative and innovative process or mechanism of implementing priority programs/projects In this case. A finding of constituents and the priority to be given each project. in the claim that PDAF funds have been illegally . For controversy. Another concern is the evaluation of the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law. LAMP would somehow be adversely affected by this. [21] Of greater import than the damage caused by the twofold aspect of ripeness: first. The Issues Further. unconstitutionality would necessarily be tantamount to a misapplication of public funds which. Undeniably. the case boils down to these issues: 1) whether or not the mandatory requisites for discounted. LAMP. direct injury as a result of its enforcement. the plaintiff. in turn. the petitioner contested the implementation of an alleged unconstitutional statute. The plaintiff may be a person who is affected no differently from any other person. Like almost all powers conferred by the Constitution. asserts a public [16] the very lis mota of the case. [20] Thus. beneficial purposes. the issue of enforcement of an invalid statute. The petition complains of illegal disbursement of public funds derived from taxation and this the exercise of judicial review are met in this case.[17] [14] same. and could be suing as a stranger. direct injury power. it Members of Congress and the authority given to them to propose and select projects is the core of the was also recognized that individual members of Congress far more than the President and their laws flawed execution resulting in a serious constitutional transgression involving the expenditure of congressional colleagues were likely to be knowledgeable about the needs of their respective public funds. to wit: (1) there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained. Hence. and 2) whether or not the implementation of PDAF by is sufficient reason to say that there indeed exists a definite. or that public funds are wasted through that may not occur as anticipated. (2) the person challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity of the subject as a result of its enforcement. a question is ripe for Here. the power of judicial review is subject to Anent locus standi. (3) the question of the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity. or indeed may not occur at all.The possibility that this injury was indeed committed cannot be To the Court. the rule is that the person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a limitations. this is the right torecover public funds possibly misapplied by no less than the Members of Congress. representing the general public. as taxpayers. InPhilconsa. allegations of illegal The Courts Ruling expenditure of public funds reflect a concrete injury that may have been committed by other branches of government before the court intervenes. courts are centrally concerned with whether a case involves uncertain contingent future events that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose. or will sustained. or as a citizen or taxpayer. cause injury or hardship to taxpayers. According to LAMP. right in assailing an allegedly illegal official action. real or substantial controversy the Members of Congress is unconstitutional and illegal. the Court upheld the authority of individual Members of Congress to as citizens and taxpayers. In the United taxpayers have been allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed or States. Enriquez. without prejudice to other recourse against erring public officials. before the Court. the fitness of the issues for judicial decision. thereby lacking an essential requisite of judicial reviewan actual case or implementation of PDAF surely involves the interplay of legal rights susceptible of judicial resolution. specified in the law. [18] The gist of the question of standing is whether a party alleges such a act or issuance. concrete. In said case. The possibility of constitutional violations in the legal basis to support its claims. and (4) the issue of constitutionality must be constitutional questions. the respondents invoke Philconsa v. adjudication when the act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging Likewise admitting that CDF and PDAF are appropriations for substantially similar. he must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens he has sustained. the the illegal expenditure of public funds is the mortal wound inflicted upon the fundamental law by the hardship to the parties entailed by withholding court consideration. or will sustain. Thus. if not the it.[19] In public suits.

the determination of Constitution. Every statute is presumed valid. In a case like With these long-established precepts in mind. but for the simple reason that facts must be established The Court rules in the negative. LAMP would have the Court declare the Now. LAMP should be allowed to sue. there must be a clear and unequivocal. The Court is not endowed with the power of clairvoyance to list of proposed projects. but also taxpayers have sufficient interest in x x x baseless supposition is an affront to the wisdom not only of the legislature that passed it but also of preventing the illegal expenditures of moneys raised by taxation and may therefore question the constitutionality of statutes requiring expenditure of the executive which approved it. sensible and just law and one which operates no further than in Guingona v. on the substantive issue. in accordance with the rules of evidence. there were direct releases of another and it is this supremacy which enables the courts to determine whether a law is constitutional or funds to the Members of Congress. The Executive Secretary. The process was explained in this wise. the Court is of the view that the petition poses issues impressed with paramount public conclusion is reached by the required majority may the Court pronounce. committed. that the challenged act must be struck down. in the discharge of the duty it interest.disbursed and wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law. not a doubtful. the Courts hands are tied in deference to the presumption of constitutionality lest the Court allowing the direct allocation and release of PDAF funds to the Members of Congress based on their own commits unpardonable judicial legislation. who actually spend them according to their sole discretion. [28] consideration of the Court. Budget preparation. 761. much less tolerated by both the Legislative and Executive. the Court now goes to the crucial question: In this. Regrettably. absent a clear showing that an offense to the principle of separation of powers was presumption of validity accorded to statutory acts of Congress. not because of any issue as to their truth. unconstitutionality of the PDAFs enforcement based on the absence of express provision in the GAA allocating PDAF funds to the Members of Congress and the latters encroachment on executive power in The powers of government are generally divided into three branches: the Legislative. The case of Pascual v. indeed.[24] The Judiciary is the final arbiter on the question of whether or not a branch of a documentation of the disbursement of funds by the DBM in favor of the Members of Congress was government or any of its officials has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or so presented by the petitioner to convince the Court to probe into the truth of their claims. the proposing and selecting projects to be funded by PDAF. Carague:[31] may be necessary to effectuate the specific purpose of the law. [25] common exercise of unscrupulous Members of Congress. the Court cannot indulge the petitioners request for rejection of a law which is outwardly legal and capable of lawful enforcement. Jur. breach of the Constitution. Not even unconstitutional. Secretary of Public Works [23] is authority in support of the petitioner: To justify the nullification of the law or its implementation. [30] In determining whether or not a statute is unconstitutional. Devoid of capriciously as to constitute an abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. accuracy. The ramification of issues involving the unconstitutional spending of PDAF deserves the cannot escape. The petition is miserably wanting in this regard. the Court does not lose sight of the Hence. Emphasis supplied. did the implementation of the PDAF provision under the GAA of 2004 violate the divine from scanty allegations in pleadings where justice and truth lie. [11 Am. budgetary priorities and activities within the constraints imposed by available . or impartiality. and only when such a Lastly. Every presumption should be indulged in favor of the constitutionality and the burden of proof is 1. the general rule is that not only establishing unconstitutionality. No convincing proof was presented showing that. This is not only a any pertinent evidentiary support that illegal misuse of PDAF in the form of kickbacks has become a judicial power but a duty to pass judgment on matters of this nature. [27] This presumption of constitutionality can be overcome only by the public moneys. The first step is essentially tasked upon the Executive on the party alleging that there is a clear and unequivocal breach of the Branch and covers the estimation of government revenues. these allegations lack Executive and the Judiciary. the Court is constrained to hold [26] the Court held that: that a lawful and regular government budgeting and appropriation process ensued during the enactment and all throughout the implementation of the GAA of 2004. In case of doubt in the sufficiency of proof In the determination of the degree of interest essential to give the requisite standing to attack the constitutionality of a statute. [29] Again. InFarias v.] clearest showing that there was indeed an infraction of the Constitution. Each branch is supreme within its own sphere being independent from one substantiation. the Court must sustain legislation because to invalidate [a law] based on persons individually affected. warranting the assumption of jurisdiction over the petition. The presumption is that the legislature intended to enact a valid. newspaper or electronic Constitution or the laws? reports showing the appalling effects of PDAF cannot be appreciated by the Court.

to exercise the spending per se of the budget. surmises and conjectures are not sufficient bases for the Court to in line with the requirements consistent with the general ceilings set by the Development Budget Coordinating Council (DBCC). the regulation of funds releases. 25 June 2013 the regulation of fund releases. Drilon and Garcia. revenues and by borrowing limits. the petition must fail based on the foregoing reasons. the valid case law. the power of appropriation is vested in the Legislature. conceived which supports the statute. the evaluation of work and financial plans for individual attacks a statute. No. Congress enters the picture and budget.A. the third phase of the budget by a piece of valid legislation cannot be used as a tool to overstep constitutional limits and arbitrarily process covers the various operational aspects of budgeting. Upon issuance of budget call. and Congress in the process remain intact. The list submitted by the Protection Order against her husband. 9262. justice. G. Simply put. and for Other Purposes. reviews and determines whether such list of projects submitted are consistent with the guidelines and being threatened of deprivation of custody of her children and of financial support and also a victim of marital the priorities set by the Executive. 2. Prescribing Penalties Therefor. [33] This demonstrates the power given to the President to execute infidelity on the part of petitioner.[34] Under the Constitution. Legislative authorization. which specifies that no money may be paid from the Treasury except in accordance with an appropriation made by law. wisdom and purposes. all presumptions are indulged in favor of constitutionality. alleging unconstitutionality must prove its invalidity beyond a reasonable doubt. Thereafter. Again. that the courts are not concerned with the wisdom. it is the latter which concludes the exercise by crafting an appropriation act it may deem beneficial to the nation. Although the possibility of this unscrupulous Budget and Management. obligations incurred. the petition is DISMISSED without pronouncement as to costs. pursuant to R. based on its own judgment.” She claimed to be a victim of physical. based on the macro-economic Members of Congress to propose and select projects was already upheld in Philconsa. policy. The Court sees no need to review or reverse the standing pronouncements in the said Bureau of Treasury computes for the interest and principal payments for the year for all case. and and work accomplished are compared with the targets set at the time the agency that a liberal interpretation of the constitution in favor of the constitutionality of legislation should be budgets were approved. The Members of Congress are then requested by the President to Facts: Private respondent Rosalie filed a petition before the RTC of Bacolod City a Temporary recommend projects and programs which may be funded from the PDAF. LIBOR rate) and estimated sources of domestic and foreign financing. Jesus. subject to the There can be no question as to the patriotism and good motive of the petitioner in filing this requirement that appropriation bills originate exclusively in the House of Representatives with the option petition. Budget accountability. one who obligation authority ceilings. Like any other piece of legislation. adopted. that a activities. the implementation of cash payment schedules. it will be upheld. The DBM lays down the guidelines for the disbursement of the fund. of the Senate to propose or concur with amendments. So long as there is no showing of a direct participation of legislators in the actual spending of the direct national government borrowings and other liabilities assumed by the same. and other related activities law may work hardship does not render it unconstitutional. and the challenger must negate all possible 4. the implementation of payment schedules and up to the actual spending posted in RESWRI2 cases by katcobing Nature of the Case: Petition for Review of Republic Act (R. J. the Executive takes the wheel. Moreover.) 9262 of the funds specified in the law. appropriation laws and therefore.g. Budget Execution. . psychological and economic violence. While the Court is not unaware of the yoke caused by graft and corruption. the petition is seriously wanting in establishing that individual Members of into expenditure levels. strike down the practice for being offensive to the Constitution. the continuing review of government fiscal position. Budget preparation starts with the budget call issued by the Department of Congress receive and thereafter spend funds out of PDAF. the appropriation act may then be susceptible to objection from the branch tasked to implement it. Tasked on the Executive.A. the evils propagated xxx 3. personnel hired bases. Unfortunately. the proposal submitted by the President to Congress. from Garcia vs. which Women and Their Children. Providing for Protective Measures for Victims. entitled “An Act Defining Violence Against Members of Congress is endorsed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives to the DBM. Each agency is required to submit agency budget estimates practice cannot be entirely discounted. that if any reasonable basis may be comprise this phase of the budget cycle. [32] While the budgetary process commences from WHEREFORE. R. exercise of its own judgment and wisdom formulates an appropriation act precisely following the process established by the Constitution. 179267. estimates debt service levels. emotional. the authority granted the With regard to debt servicing. or expediency of a statute. budget execution comes under the domain of the Executive branch which deals with the operational aspects of the cycle including the allocation and release of funds earmarked for various projects. and the translation of desired priorities and activities As applied to this case. At this stage. This remains as projections of interest rates (e. by way of a Presidential veto. The establishment of annul acts of Congress. The fourth phase refers to the evaluation of actual performance and initially approved work targets. the DBCC staff. the constitutional boundaries between the Executive and the Legislative in the budgetary deliberates or acts on the budget proposals of the President.

In Victoriano v. unjust and violative of the equal protection clause. No. The same holds true with the issuance of BPO. Petitioner’s contention that by not allowing mediation. as the nation celebrated the 20 th Anniversary of the Edsa distinctions which make for real differences. the Court ruled that all that is required of a valid classification is that it be reasonable. The non-referral of a VAWC case to a mediator is justified. . The preliminary investigation conducted by the prosecutor is an executive. and apply equally to each member of the class. Elizalde Rope Workerkers’ Union. RA 9262 does not violate the guaranty of equal protection of the laws.The TPO was granted but the petitioner failed to faithfully comply with the conditions set forth by the said TPO. that it must be germane to the purpose of the law. jurisdiction on any part of any branch of the Government while executive power is the power to enforce and administer the laws. and the validity of the case or any issue therof to a mediator. denied the petition for failure to raise the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable and issue of constitutionality in his pleadings before the trial court and the petition for prohibition to annul protection to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of orders issued by the trial court constituted collateral attack on said law. Officials and other law Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. The question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible time so that if not raised in the doctrine. David vs Arroyo APRIL 9. Petitioner contends that the RTC has limited authority and jurisdiction. it may not be raised in the trial and if not raised in the trial court. I only focused on the overbreadth complex issue of constitutionality. There is no undue delegation of judicial power to Barangay officials. David vs Arroyo 2. which means that the classification should be based on substantial Facts: On February 24. Issues: WON the CA erred in dismissing the petition on the theory that the issue of constitutionality was not The petition for review on certiorari is denied for lack of merit. Judicial power includes the duty of the The CA issued a TRO on the enforcement of the TPO but however. On the classification and did not violate the equal protection clause by favouring women over men as victims of violence same day. President Arroyo issued PP 1017 declaring a state of national emergency. 2006 persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike. Family Courts have authority and jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of a statute. not a judicial.” 5. The trial court issued a modified reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of one’s defense. Equal protection simply requires that all G. The TPO and extended the same when petitioner failed to comment on why the TPO should not be modified. Officials. this petition is filed.” 4. 2014 | KAAARINA Decision: 1. WON the CA committed serious error in failing to conclude that RA 9262 is discriminatory. and abuse to whom the Senate extends its protection. 3. 2006. WON the CA committed grave mistake in not finding that RA 9262 runs counter to the due process clause of the Constitution WON the CA erred in not finding that the law does violence to the policy of the state to protect the family as a basic social institution WON the CA seriously erredin declaring RA 9262 as invalid and unconstitutional because it allows an undue delegation of judicial power to Brgy. inadequate to tackle the (Note: Many issues are discernible in this case.R.) pleadings. In a memorandum of the Court. modified TPO for being “an unwanted product of an invalid law. O. Assistance by Brgy. the given time allowance to answer. Thus. the law violated the policy of the State to protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous Petitioner filed before the CA a petition for prohibition with prayer for injunction and TRO on. enforcement agencies is consistent with their duty executive function. function. 171396 May 3. 5 implementing PP 1017. the President issued G. No. questioning the social institution cannot be sustained. the petitioner no longer submitted the required comment as it would be an “axercise in futility. This is so because violence is not a subject for compromise. Therefore. it may not be considered in appeal. RA9262 is based on a valid People Power I. not limited to existing conditions only. it ruled that the court shall not refer the constitutionality of the RA 9262 for violating the due process and equal protection clauses. The essence of due process is in the private-respondent filed another application for the issuance of a TPO ex parte. raised at the earliest opportunity and that the petition constitutes a collateral attack on the validity of the law. RA 9262 is not violative of the due process clause of the Constitution. both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. After grant of the TPO exparte cannot be impugned as violative of the right to due process.

Whether PP 107 is void because of its “overbreadth” 2.” They claim that Second. not free speech. is uncalled for. the impact on the comprehensive controls over harmful. but on the assumption or prediction that its very existence may cause others not before the at the very least.O. have been curtailed when invoked against ordinary criminal laws they might be decided.[105] it was held: In other words. The Court assumes that an overbroad law’s “very existence may Moreover. .”[106] Here. also known under the American Law as First permitted to raise the rights of third parties and can only assert their own interests. the overbreadth doctrine is an analytical tool developed for testing improper applications on a case to case basis. constitutionally unprotected conduct. facial invalidation of laws is considered as “manifestly strong medicine. Oklahoma. Held: No. In Younger v. lawless violence. The most distinctive feature of the overbreadth technique is that it marks an exception to some of the usual rules of constitutional litigation. courageous enough to bring suit.” to be its enforcement encroached on both unprotected and protected rights under Section 4.” not merely “as applied conduct.” and is “generally disfavored. Three (3) of these petitions impleaded President Arroyo as respondent. not on the basis of its actual operation to petitioners.” Undoubtedly. and requiring correction of speech’ toward conduct and that conduct –even if expressive – falls within the scope of these deficiencies before the statute is put into effect. whichever way entertained at all.” InBroadrick v. a limited one at the outset. “harmful” and “constitutionally unprotected conduct. No. i. Embedded in the traditional rules governing constitutional adjudication is the principle that a person to whom a law may be applied will not be heard to challenge a law on the ground that it may conceivably be applied unconstitutionally to others.[109] it rules of practice and that its function. Moreover. legislative process of the relief sought. a facial challenge using the overbreadth doctrine will require the Court to examine It remains a ‘matter of no little difficulty’ to determine when a law may properly be held void on its PP 1017 and pinpoint its flaws and defects. if the litigant prevails. that facial overbreadth adjudication is an exception to our traditional Court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or expression. attenuates as the was held that: otherwise unprotected behavior that it forbids the State to sanction moves from ‘pure [T]he task of analyzing a proposed statute. But the plain import of our cases is. the courts carve away the unconstitutional aspects of the law by invalidating its First and foremost.e.[104] the US Supreme Court held that “we have it more narrowly. claims of facial overbreadth are entertained in cases involving statutes which. In United States v. the overbreadth doctrine is not intended for testing the validity of a law that “reflects cause others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or legitimate state interest in maintaining comprehensive control over harmful. Whether PP 1017 and G. The factor that motivates courts to depart from the normal adjudicatory rules is not recognized an ‘overbreadth’ doctrine outside the limited context of the First the concern with the “chilling. pinpointing its deficiencies. the incontrovertible fact the respondents. In Amendment cases. constitutionally expression. and the court invalidates the entire statute “on its face. and above all the speculative and amorphous Thus. remains that PP 1017 pertains to a spectrum of conduct.” deterrent effect of the overbroad statute on third parties not Amendment” (freedom of speech). Petitioners contend that PP 1017 is void on its face because of its “overbreadth. Article III of used “sparingly and only as a last resort. those rules give way. that “overbreadth claims. A facial review of PP 1017. is rarely if ever an appropriate task for the otherwise valid criminal laws that reflect legitimate state interests in maintaining judiciary. 5 are unconstitutional. No. using the overbreadth doctrine. if kind of case that is wholly unsatisfactory for deciding constitutional questions.”[107] The reason for the Constitution and sent a “chilling effect” to the citizens. 5 were filed against that are sought to be applied to protected conduct.” An overbreadth ruling is designed to remove that deterrent effect on the speech of unprotected conduct. by their nature of the required line-by-line analysis of detailed statutes. Harris. face and when ‘such summary action’ is inappropriate. which is manifestly subject to state regulation. It is actually a call upon the AFP to prevent or suppress all forms for” so that the overbroad law becomes unenforceable until a properly authorized court construes of lawless violence. insurrection and rebellion are considered those third parties. Salerno. this is obvious.O.[108] A writer and scholar in Constitutional Law explains further: Issue: 1. a particular litigant claims that a statute is unconstitutional as applied to him or her. Ordinarily. challengers to a law are not “on their faces” statutes in free speech cases.. overbreadth analysis. The combination of the relative remoteness of the controversy. in other situations not before the Court.…ordinarily results in a terms. seek to regulate only “spoken words” and again. challenges are permitted to raise the rights A plain reading of PP 1017 shows that it is not primarily directed to speech or even speech-related of third parties.Seven (7) petitions challenging the constitutionality of PP 1017 and G.

They also failed to establish that men of common intelligence cannot understand the meaning and application of PP 1017. The Court rules that PP 1017 is CONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it constitutes a call by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on the AFP to prevent or suppress lawless violence. a facial challenge on the ground of overbreadth is the most difficult challenge to mount successfully. the imposition of standards on media or any form of prior restraint on the press.” Considering that “acts of terrorism” have not yet been defined and made punishable by the Legislature. petitioners did not even attempt to show that PP 1017 is vague in all its application. in the absence of proof that these petitioners were committing acts constituting lawless violence. In addition. the dispersal and warrantless arrest of the KMU and NAFLU-KMU members during their rallies. but such declaration does not authorize the President to take over privately-owned public utility or business affected with public interest without prior legislation. it is also an analytical tool for testing “on their faces” statutes in free speech cases. David and Ronald Llamas. Again. Article VII of the Constitution is CONSTITUTIONAL.O. A facial review of PP 1017 on the ground of vagueness is likewise unwarranted. .”[110] It is subject to the same principles governing overbreadth doctrine. are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. i. petitioners did not even attempt to show whether this situation exists. And like overbreadth.O. Here. as well as decrees promulgated by the President. The Petitions are partly granted. However. such portion of G. 5 is CONSTITUTIONAL since it provides a standard by which the AFP and the PNP should implement PP 1017.And third.e. are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. G. 5 is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Related to the “overbreadth” doctrine is the “void for vagueness doctrine” which holds that “a law is facially invalid if men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. No. the provisions of PP 1017 commanding the AFP to enforce laws not related to lawless violence. The warrantless arrest of Randolf S. 2. For one. the provision in PP 1017 declaring national emergency under Section 17. as well as the warrantless search of the Tribune offices and whimsical seizure of its articles for publication and other materials. it is said that a litigant may challenge a statute on its face only if it is vague in all its possible applications. invasion or rebellion and violating BP 880. whatever is “necessary and appropriate actions and measures to suppress and prevent acts of lawless violence. since the challenger must establish that there can be no instance when the assailed law may be valid. No.