You are on page 1of 10


OCHOA The president does have his own source of fund albeit not
included in the GAA. The so-called presidential pork barrel
The so-called pork barrel system has been around in the
comes from two sources: (a) the Malampaya Funds, from the
Philippines since about 1922. Pork Barrel is commonly known
Malampaya Gas Project – this has been around since 1976,
as the lump-sum, discretionary funds of the members of the
and (b) the Presidential Social Fund which is derived from the
Congress. It underwent several legal designations from
earnings of PAGCOR – this has been around since about
“Congressional Pork Barrel” to the latest “Priority
Development Assistance Fund” or PDAF. The allocation for the
pork barrel is integrated in the annual General Appropriations Pork Barrel Scam Controversy
Act (GAA). Ever since, the pork barrel system has been besieged by
Since 2011, the allocation of the PDAF has been done in the allegations of corruption. In July 2013, six whistle blowers,
following manner: headed by Benhur Luy, exposed that for the last decade, the
corruption in the pork barrel system had been facilitated by
a. P70 million: for each member of the lower house; broken
Janet Lim Napoles. Napoles had been helping lawmakers in
down to – P40 million for “hard projects” (infrastructure
funneling their pork barrel funds into about 20 bogus NGO’s
projects like roads, buildings, schools, etc.), and P30 million
(non-government organizations) which would make it
for “soft projects” (scholarship grants, medical assistance,
appear that government funds are being used in legit existing
livelihood programs, IT development, etc.);
projects but are in fact going to “ghost” projects. An audit
b. P200 million: for each senator; broken down to – P100 was then conducted by the Commission on Audit and the
million for hard projects, P100 million for soft projects; results thereof concurred with the exposes of Luy et al.
c. P200 million: for the Vice-President; broken down to – Motivated by the foregoing, Greco Belgica and several
P100 million for hard projects, P100 million for soft projects. others, filed various petitions before the Supreme Court
The PDAF articles in the GAA do provide for realignment of questioning the constitutionality of the pork barrel system.
funds whereby certain cabinet members may request for the ISSUES:
realignment of funds into their department provided that the
I. Whether or not the congressional pork barrel system is
request for realignment is approved or concurred by the
legislator concerned.
II. Whether or not presidential pork barrel system is
Presidential Pork Barrel
HELD: be delegated by Congress for it cannot delegate further that
which was delegated to it by the Constitution.
I. No, the congressional pork barrel system is
unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional because it violates the Exceptions to the rule are:
following principles:
(i) delegated legislative power to local government units but
a. Separation of Powers this shall involve purely local matters;
As a rule, the budgeting power lies in Congress. It regulates (ii) authority of the President to, by law, exercise powers
the release of funds (power of the purse). The executive, on necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy
the other hand, implements the laws – this includes the GAA in times of war or other national emergency, or fix within
to which the PDAF is a part of. Only the executive may specified limits, and subject to such limitations and
implement the law but under the pork barrel system, what’s restrictions as Congress may impose, tariff rates, import and
happening was that, after the GAA, itself a law, was enacted, export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties
the legislators themselves dictate as to which projects their or imposts within the framework of the national development
PDAF funds should be allocated to – a clear act of program of the Government.
implementing the law they enacted – a violation of the
In this case, the PDAF articles which allow the individual
principle of separation of powers. (Note in the older case of
legislator to identify the projects to which his PDAF money
PHILCONSA vs Enriquez, it was ruled that pork barrel, then
should go to is a violation of the rule on non-delegability of
called as CDF or the Countrywide Development Fund, was
legislative power. The power to appropriate funds is solely
constitutional insofar as the legislators only recommend
lodged in Congress (in the two houses comprising it)
where their pork barrel funds go).
collectively and not lodged in the individual members.
This is also highlighted by the fact that in realigning the PDAF, Further, nowhere in the exceptions does it state that the
the executive will still have to get the concurrence of the Congress can delegate the power to the individual member
legislator concerned. of Congress.
b. Non-delegability of Legislative Power c. Principle of Checks and Balances
As a rule, the Constitution vests legislative power in Congress One feature in the principle of checks and balances is the
alone. (The Constitution does grant the people legislative power of the president to veto items in the GAA which he
power but only insofar as the processes of referendum and may deem to be inappropriate. But this power is already
initiative are concerned). That being, legislative power cannot being undermined because of the fact that once the GAA is
approved, the legislator can now identify the project to which
he will appropriate his PDAF. Under such system, how can the Belgica et al emphasized that the presidential pork comes
president veto the appropriation made by the legislator if the from the earnings of the Malampaya and PAGCOR and not
appropriation is made after the approval of the GAA – from any appropriation from a particular legislation.
again, “Congress cannot choose a mode of budgeting which
The Supreme Court disagrees as it ruled that PD 910, which
effectively renders the constitutionally-given power of the
created the Malampaya Fund, as well as PD 1869 (as
President useless.”
amended by PD 1993), which amended PAGCOR’s charter,
d. Local Autonomy provided for the appropriation, to wit:
As a rule, the local governments have the power to manage (i) PD 910: Section 8 thereof provides that all fees, among
their local affairs. Through their Local Development Councils others, collected from certain energy-related ventures shall
(LDCs), the LGUs can develop their own programs and form part of a special fund (the Malampaya Fund) which shall
policies concerning their localities. But with the PDAF, be used to further finance energy resource development and
particularly on the part of the members of the house of for other purposes which the President may direct;
representatives, what’s happening is that a congressman can
(ii) PD 1869, as amended: Section 12 thereof provides that a
either bypass or duplicate a project by the LDC and later on
part of PAGCOR’s earnings shall be allocated to a General
claim it as his own. This is an instance where the national
Fund (the Presidential Social Fund) which shall be used in
government (note, a congressman is a national officer)
government infrastructure projects.
meddles with the affairs of the local government – and this is
contrary to the State policy embodied in the Constitution on These are sufficient laws which met the requirement of
local autonomy. It’s good if that’s all that is happening under Section 29, Article VI of the Constitution. The appropriation
the pork barrel system but worse, the PDAF becomes more contemplated therein does not have to be a particular
of a personal fund on the part of legislators. appropriation as it can be a general appropriation as in the
case of PD 910 and PD 1869.
II. Yes, the presidential pork barrel is valid.
The main issue raised by Belgica et al against the presidential
pork barrel is that it is unconstitutional because it violates
Section 29 (1), Article VI of the Constitution which provides:
No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in
pursuance of an appropriation made by law.
PEOPLE v. AMARELA friends and slept.

People of the Philippines v Juvy Amarela and Junard Rancho Racho said that at around 10 Pm AAA arrived at their house
(2018) and was crying because she was allegedly raped. His mother
asked him to accompany her but he left her at some point
G.R.No. 225642-43 because he did not want to accompany her to Ventura, which
was too far.
He also said his hand was impaired due to a hacking incident
2 Informations were filed: a few months back. He presented a medical certificate.

On 10 Feb 2009 in Davao, Amarela through force have carnal RTC found both Amarela and Racho guilty of rape.
knowledge of AAA against her will
On 11 February 2009 in Davao, Rancho had carnal knowledge CA affirmed the RTC decision.
of AAA against her will
The facts as found by RTC: According to CA:

AAA, single, housekeeper, was watching a beauty contest in a 1. Her credibility is cemented by lack of motive to testify
makeshift basketball court at around 6 PM. She walked to the against the two appellants.
comfort room beside the cooperative building to urinate. On
her way she was intercepted by Amarela who dragged her to The appellants’ denials fail in contrast to AAA’s positive
the day care center and raped her there. identification… Positive identification prevails over denial.
On the argument that being raped by two different men on two
She shouted for help and Amarela fled. The 3 men who came different occasions only hours apart: There is no typical mode,
to her rescue had bad intentions so she escaped them. She norm or circumstance in committing rape. Rape is no respecter
then went to the house of Godo Dumandan, who brought her of time or place.
to the Racho residence. Neneng Racho asked her son Junard On the argument that, “Testimony is not corroborated by
Racho to take her to her aunt’s house. On the way Racho medical findings as the medical certificate does not show any
raped her by using force. physical injuries”: The absence of any superficial abrasion or
contusion does not militate against the claim of the latter
Amarela presented an alibi - he met AAA at 4 PM at the whose clear and candid testimony bears the badges of truth,
cooperative building, she asked him if he knew her boyfriend honesty or candor. It must be stressed that the absence or
Eric Dumandan. He saw Eric later and passed on the presence of visible signs of injury on the victim depends on the
message that AAA was looking fo him. He later drank with his degree of force employed by the accused to consummate the
purpose which he had in mind. Thus the force employed in considered, such as frequency of lacerations and whether they
rape need not be so great nor of such a character as could not are in different positions. If in different areas of the vaginal
be resisted. .. only that it is sufficient to enable him to orifice, then it is a good indicator that there was sexual
consummate his purpose. abuse. In this case, the lacerations were only at 3 and 9
SC reversed. o’clock, so we cannot rule out that AAA had sex voluntarily.
The absence of bruises when she said she was punched three
The court’s opinion in People v Tana re the “women’s honor” (3) times on the thighs reinforces this theory.
doctrine borders on the fallacy of non-sequitur. We should stay Against Racho, the court said that as her testimony did not
away from such mindset and the Maria Clara stereotype and pass the test of credibility, the case against Racho must be
accept the realities of a woman’s dynamic role in society… We considered in the same light.
evaluate the complainant’s testimony without gender bias or
cultural misconception. The Court said that it was against human experience that AAA
did not report the incident to the proper authorities. She
Against Amarela: instead insisted that she be brought to her aunt’s house
instead of to the police.
The version in her affidavit complaint differs materially from her
testimony in court - in her testimony she said she was on her Also, Racho was able to immediately go home, as
way to the comfort room when she was dragged by Amarela to corroborated by his mother’s testimony.
the day care center. In her affidavit she said she was pulled
from the vicinity of the stage. Court said people would easily Prosecution must present a detailed story to get a conviction
notice a man holding a woman against her will. The
inconsistency put AAA’s credibility in question. What really is the Woman’s Honor doctrine, also referred to as
AAA could not have positively identified Amarela because it the Maria Clara doctrine?
was dark and she saw him only for the first time.
Her testimony lacks material details on how she was brought “It is a well-known fact that women, especially Filipinos, would
to the day care center against her will. - The makeshift stage not admit that they have been abused unless that abuse had
at the day care center was only 2 feet high and it was actually happened. This is due to their natural instinct to
physically impossible for 2 people to move freely under it. protect their honor. We cannot believe that the offended party
Medical findings do not corroborate physical injuries and are would have positively stated that intercourse took place unless
inconclusive of signs of forced entry. - Her lacerations were at it did actually take place.”
3 and 9 o’clock. The statistical results of locations of vaginal
lacerations are almost the same whether sex was consensual
or not. Therefore a specific location cannot distinguish if sex
was consensual or otherwise. However other factors should be Isn’t it only an exercise of court’s discretionary judicial notice
under Section 2, Rule 129, Rules of Court? misconception.”

RULE 129

What Need Not Be Proved ***************

Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A court shall There is opinion however that this decision is void: “It,
take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the however, must be recalled that the case was decided by the
existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, Supreme Court's Third Division under the ponencia of Justice
forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of Martires. Under Article 8.4.3 of the 1987 Constitution, "Cases
nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved
their seals, the political constitution and history of the with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who
Philippines, the official acts of legislative, executive and actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case
judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the and voted thereon, and in no case, without the concurrence of
measure of time, and the geographical divisions. (1a) at least three of such Members. When the required number is
not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc: Provided,
Section 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. — A court may that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a
take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or
or are capable to unquestionable demonstration, or ought to reversed except by the court sitting en banc."
be known to judges because of their judicial functions. (1a) (
of-maria-clara-doctrine-may.html)Article 8353 the Anti-Rape
Will court still examine credibility and testimony of rape victim Law of 1997, re-defined the crime of Rape. Since then it was
and Woman’s Honor doctrine is just additional evidentiary tool treated as a crime against persons, not a crime against
utilized by court? chastity.

Yes, the court emphasised this in its decision in People v

Amarela when it appreciated both affidavit and testimony and
found material inconsistencies that cast doubt on I. Elements of Rape
complainant’s credibility. It said: “The court’s opinion in People
v Tano re the “women’s honor” doctrine borders on the fallacy
of non-sequitur. We should stay away from such mindset and
the Maria Clara stereotype and accept the realities of a Below are the articles in the RPC. Paragraph 1 lists the
woman’s dynamic role in society… We evaluate the elements of traditional rape or how it is usually committed, and
complainant’s testimony without gender bias or cultural Paragraph 2 provides for the elements of rape by sexual
assault. weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be
reclusion perpetua to death.

"When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has

"Article 266-A. Rape: When And How Committed. - Rape is become insane, the penalty shall become reclusion perpetua
committed: to death.

"1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman "When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by
under any of the following circumstances: reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be
reclusion perpetua to death.
"a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
"When by reason or on the occasion ofthe rape, homicide is
"b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise committed, the penalty shall be death.
"The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is
"c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying
authority; and circumstances:

"d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age
or is demented, even though none of the circumstances "l) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the
mentioned above be present. offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative
by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the
common-law spouse of the parent of the victim;

"2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances "2) When the victim is under the custody of the police or
mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act military authorities or any law enforcement or penal institution;
of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's
mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the "3) When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse,
genital or anal orifice of another person. parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third
civil degree of consanguinity;
"Article 266-B. Penalty. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next
preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. "4) When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate
religious vocation or calling and is personally known to be
"Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly such by the offender before or at the time of the commission of
the crime; "When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has
become insane, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal.
"5) When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old;
"When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by
"6) When the offender knows that he is afflicted with the reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be
Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus (HIV)/Acquired Immune reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua.
Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any other sexually
transmissible disease and the virus or disease is transmitted to "When by reason or on the occasion ofthe rape, homicide is
the victim; committed, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua.

"7) When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of "Reclusion temporal shall be imposed if the rape is committed
the Philippines or para-military units thereof or the Philippine with any of the ten aggravating/ qualifying circumstances
National Police or any law enforcement agency or penal mentioned in this article.
institution, when the offender took advantage of his position to
facilitate the commission of the crime;

"8) When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim Article 266-C retained the effects of pardon.
has suffered permanent physical mutilation or disability;

"9) When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended

party at the time of the commission of the crime; and "Article 266-C. Effect of Pardon. - The subsequent valid
marriage between the offended party shall extinguish the
"10) When the offender knew of the mental disability, criminal action or the penalty imposed.
emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended
party at the time of the commission of the crime. "In case it is the legal husband who is the offender, the
subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended party shall
extinguish the criminal action or the penalty: Provided, That
"Rape under paragraph 2 of the next preceding article shall be the crime shall not be extinguished or the penalty shall not be
punished by prision mayor. abated if the marriage is void ab initio.

"Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly Article 266-D provides for presumptions of rape when the
weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be prision offended party resists the sexual advances.
mayor to reclusion temporal.
"Article 266-D. Presumptions. - Any physical overt act
manifesting resistance against the act of rape in any degree
from the offended party, or where the offended party is so
situated as to render her/him incapable of giving valid consent,
may be accepted as evidence in the prosecution of the acts
punished under Article 266-A."

In reviewing rape cases, the Court is guided by the following


(1) to accuse a man of rape is easy, but to disprove the

accusation is difficult, though the accused may be innocent;

(2) inasmuch as only two persons are usually involved in the

crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be
scrutinized with great caution; and

(3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its
own merit and should not be allowed to draw strength from the
weakness of the evidence for the defense. So long as the
private complainant’s testimony meets the test of credibility,
the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof. [People v
Patentes, G.R. No. 190178, 12 February 2014]
Carpio Marales v. CA