BELGICA vs.

HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO OCHOA

Raymond Brotarlo Pasco, 1E

FACTS:
The NBI began its probe into allegations that the government has been
defrauded by a syndicate using funds from the pork barrel of
lawmakers and various government agencies for scores of ghost
projects. The investigation was spawned by sworn affidavits of six (6)
whistle-blowers who declared that JLN Corporation (Janet Lim Naples)
had swindled billions of pesos from the public coffers for ghost
projects using dummy NGOs. Thus, criminal complaints were filed
before the Office of the Ombudsman.
Whistle-blowers alleged that at least P900 Million from the royalties in
the operation of the Malampaya gas projects off Palawan province
intended for agrarian reform beneficiaries has gone into a dummy
NGO. Several petitions were lodged before the Court similarly seeking
that the "Pork Barrel System" be declared unconstitutional.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the Congressional Pork Barrel System is
constitutional.
2. Whether or not the Presidential Pork Barrel is constitutional.

HELD:
1. No, considering that the Congressional Pork Barrel System violates
the principles of constitutional provisions on (a) separation of powers;
(b) non-delegability of legislative power; and (c) checks and balances.
(a) There is a violation of the separation of powers principle when one
branch of government unduly encroaches on the domain of another.
The Executive department should exclusively exercise all roles and
prerogatives which go into the implementation of the national budget
as provided under the GAA as well as any other appropriation law.
Congressional Pork Barrel wrecks the assignment of responsibilities
between the political branches as it is designed to allow individual
legislators to interfere way past the time it should have ceased or,
particularly, after the GAA is passed. The fundamental rule, as
articulated in ABAKADA case, cannot be overstated - from the moment
the law becomes effective, any provision of the law that empowers
Congress or any of its members to play any role in the implementation
or enforcement of the law violates the principle of separation of
powers, thus unconstitutional.
(b) Legislative power shall be exclusively exercised by the body to
which the Constitution has conferred the same, that is the Congress of
the Philippines. PDAF Article violates the principle of non-delegability
since the said legislators are effectively allowed to individually
exercise the power of appropriation. This renders the PDAF Article
unconstitutional.
(c) PDAF is a lump-sum appropriation, the legislator's identification of
the projects come after the passage of the GAA. This then denies the
President the chance to veto that item later on. It is provided that an
item of appropriation bill obviously means an item which, in itself, is a
specific appropriation of money, not some general provision of law
which happens to be put into an appropriation bill. The amount of
P24.79 Billion only appears as a collective allocation limit since the
said amount would be further divided among individual legislators who
would then receive personal lump-sum allocations and could, after the
GAA is passed, effectively appropriate PDAF funds based on their own
discretion. Court finds the PDAF Article to be unconstitutional as it
denies the system of checks and balances.
2.
(a) Sec. 8 of PD 910 and Sec. 12 of PD 1869 are valid appropriation laws
for they set apart determinable amount and specify a public purpose.
(b) Sec. 8 of PD 910 and Sec. 12 of PD 1869 constitute undue
delegation of legislative powers the delimitations are too broad, thus
leaves the President without any guideline.