Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 208566 November 19, 2013

GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA JOSE M. VILLEGAS JR. JOSE L. GONZALEZ

REUBEN M. ABANTE and QUINTIN PAREDES SAN DIEGO, Petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA JR. SECRETARY OF BUDGET
AND MANAGEMENT FLORENCIO B. ABAD, NATIONAL TREASURER ROSALIA V. DE LEON
SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES represented by FRANKLIN M. DRILON m his capacity as
SENATE PRESIDENT and HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES represented by FELICIANO S.
BELMONTE, JR. in his capacity as SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, Respondents.

x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 208493

SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS) PRESIDENT SAMSON S. ALCANTARA, Petitioner,

vs.
HONORABLE FRANKLIN M. DRILON in his capacity as SENATE PRESIDENT and
HONORABLE FELICIANO S. BELMONTE, JR., in his capacity as SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES, Respondents.

x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 209251

PEDRITO M. NEPOMUCENO, Former Mayor-Boac, Marinduque Former Provincial Board

Member -Province of Marinduque, Petitioner,
vs.
PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III* and SECRETARY FLORENCIO BUTCH ABAD,
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, Respondents.

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

"Experience is the oracle of truth." 1

-James Madison

Before the Court are consolidated petitions taken under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, all of which
2

assail the constitutionality of the Pork Barrel System. Due to the complexity of the subject matter, the
Court shall heretofore discuss the system‘s conceptual underpinnings before detailing the particulars
of the constitutional challenge.
 The Facts

I. Pork Barrel: General Concept.

"Pork Barrel" is political parlance of American -English origin. Historically, its usage may be
3

traced to the degrading ritual of rolling out a barrel stuffed with pork to a multitude of black
slaves who would cast their famished bodies into the porcine feast to assuage their hunger
with morsels coming from the generosity of their well-fed master. This practice was later
4

compared to the actions of American legislators in trying to direct federal budgets in favor of
their districts. While the advent of refrigeration has made the actual pork barrel obsolete, it
5

persists in reference to political bills that "bring home the bacon" to a legislator‘s district and
constituents. In a more technical sense, "Pork Barrel" refers to an appropriation of
6

government spending meant for localized projects and secured solely or primarily to bring
money to a representative's district. Some scholars on the subject further use it to refer to
7

legislative control of local appropriations. 8

In the Philippines, "Pork Barrel" has been commonly referred to as lump-sum, discretionary
funds of Members of the Legislature, although, as will be later discussed, its usage would
9

evolve in reference to certain funds of the Executive.

II. History of Congressional Pork Barrel in the Philippines.

A. Pre-Martial Law Era (1922-1972).

Act 3044, or the Public Works Act of 1922, is considered as the earliest form of
10 11

"Congressional Pork Barrel" in the Philippines since the utilization of the funds
appropriated therein were subjected to post-enactment legislator approval.
Particularly, in the area of fund release, Section 3 provides that the sums
12

appropriated for certain public works projects "shall be distributed x x x subject to

13

the approval of a joint committee elected by the Senate and the House of
Representatives. "The committee from each House may also authorize one of its
members to approve the distribution made by the Secretary of Commerce and
Communications." Also, in the area of fund realignment, the same section provides
14

that the said secretary, "with the approval of said joint committee, or of the authorized
members thereof, may, for the purposes of said distribution, transfer unexpended
portions of any item of appropriation under this Act to any other item hereunder."

In 1950, it has been documented that post-enactment legislator participation

15

broadened from the areas of fund release and realignment to the area of project
identification. During that year, the mechanics of the public works act was modified to
the extent that the discretion of choosing projects was transferred from the Secretary
of Commerce and Communications to legislators. "For the first time, the law carried a
list of projects selected by Members of Congress, they ‘being the representatives of
the people, either on their own account or by consultation with local officials or civil
leaders.‘" During this period, the pork barrel process commenced with local
16

government councils, civil groups, and individuals appealing to Congressmen or

Senators for projects. Petitions that were accommodated formed part of a legislator‘s
allocation, and the amount each legislator would eventually get is determined in a
caucus convened by the majority. The amount was then integrated into the
administration bill prepared by the Department of Public Works and Communications.
Thereafter, the Senate and the House of Representatives added their own provisions
to the bill until it was signed into law by the President – the Public Works Act. In the
17
 1960‘s, however, pork barrel legislation reportedly ceased in view of the stalemate
between the House of Representatives and the Senate. 18

B. Martial Law Era (1972-1986).

While the previous" Congressional Pork Barrel" was apparently discontinued in 1972
after Martial Law was declared, an era when "one man controlled the
legislature," the reprieve was only temporary. By 1982, the Batasang Pambansa
19

had already introduced a new item in the General Appropriations Act (GAA) called
the" Support for Local Development Projects" (SLDP) under the article on "National
Aid to Local Government Units". Based on reports, it was under the SLDP that the
20

practice of giving lump-sum allocations to individual legislators began, with each

assemblyman receiving ₱500,000.00. Thereafter, assemblymen would communicate
their project preferences to the Ministry of Budget and Management for approval.
Then, the said ministry would release the allocation papers to the Ministry of Local
Governments, which would, in turn, issue the checks to the city or municipal
treasurers in the assemblyman‘s locality. It has been further reported that
"Congressional Pork Barrel" projects under the SLDP also began to cover not only
public works projects, or so- called "hard projects", but also "soft projects", or non-
21

public works projects such as those which would fall under the categories of, among
others, education, health and livelihood. 22

C. Post-Martial Law Era:

Corazon Cojuangco Aquino Administration (1986-1992).

After the EDSA People Power Revolution in 1986 and the restoration of Philippine
democracy, "Congressional Pork Barrel" was revived in the form of the "Mindanao
Development Fund" and the "Visayas Development Fund" which were created with
lump-sum appropriations of ₱480 Million and ₱240 Million, respectively, for the
funding of development projects in the Mindanao and Visayas areas in 1989. It has
been documented that the clamor raised by the Senators and the Luzon
23

legislators for a similar funding, prompted the creation of the "Countrywide

Development Fund" (CDF) which was integrated into the 1990 GAA with an initial
24

funding of ₱2.3 Billion to cover "small local infrastructure and other priority
community projects."

Under the GAAs for the years 1991 and 1992, CDF funds were, with the approval of
25

the President, to be released directly to the implementing agencies but "subject

to the submission of the required list of projects and activities. "Although the
GAAs from 1990 to 1992 were silent as to the amounts of allocations of the individual
legislators, as well as their participation in the identification of projects, it has been
reported that by 1992, Representatives were receiving ₱12.5 Million each in CDF
26

funds, while Senators were receiving ₱18 Million each, without any limitation or
qualification, and that they could identify any kind of project, from hard or
infrastructure projects such as roads, bridges, and buildings to "soft projects" such as
textbooks, medicines, and scholarships. 27

D. Fidel Valdez Ramos (Ramos) Administration (1992-1998).

The following year, or in 1993, the GAA explicitly stated that the release of CDF
28

funds was to be made upon the submission of the list of projects and activities
 identified by, among others, individual legislators. For the first time, the 1993 CDF
Article included an allocation for the Vice-President. As such, Representatives
29

were allocated ₱12.5 Million each in CDF funds, Senators, ₱18 Million each, and the
Vice-President, ₱20 Million.

In 1994, 1995, and 1996, the GAAs contained the same provisions on project
30 31 32

identification and fund release as found in the 1993 CDF Article. In addition, however,
the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) was directed to submit reports to
the Senate Committee on Finance and the House Committee on Appropriations on
the releases made from the funds. 33

Under the 1997 CDF Article, Members of Congress and the Vice-President, in
34

consultation with the implementing agency concerned, were directed to submit to the
DBM the list of 50% of projects to be funded from their respective CDF allocations
which shall be duly endorsed by (a) the Senate President and the Chairman of the
Committee on Finance, in the case of the Senate, and (b) the Speaker of the House
of Representatives and the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, in the
case of the House of Representatives; while the list for the remaining 50% was to be
submitted within six (6) months thereafter. The same article also stated that the
project list, which would be published by the DBM, "shall be the basis for the release
35

of funds" and that "no funds appropriated herein shall be disbursed for projects not
included in the list herein required."

The following year, or in 1998, the foregoing provisions regarding the required lists
36

and endorsements were reproduced, except that the publication of the project list
was no longer required as the list itself sufficed for the release of CDF Funds.

The CDF was not, however, the lone form of "Congressional Pork Barrel" at that
time. Other forms of "Congressional Pork Barrel" were reportedly fashioned and
inserted into the GAA (called "Congressional Insertions" or "CIs") in order to
perpetuate the ad ministration‘s political agenda. It has been articulated that since
37

CIs "formed part and parcel of the budgets of executive departments, they were not
easily identifiable and were thus harder to monitor." Nonetheless, the lawmakers
themselves as well as the finance and budget officials of the implementing agencies,
as well as the DBM, purportedly knew about the insertions. Examples of these CIs
38

are the Department of Education (DepEd) School Building Fund, the Congressional
Initiative Allocations, the Public Works Fund, the El Niño Fund, and the Poverty
Alleviation Fund. The allocations for the School Building Fund, particularly, ―shall
39

be made upon prior consultation with the representative of the legislative district
concerned.” Similarly, the legislators had the power to direct how, where and when
40

these appropriations were to be spent. 41

E. Joseph Ejercito Estrada (Estrada) Administration (1998-2001).

In 1999, the CDF was removed in the GAA and replaced by three (3) separate
42

forms of CIs, namely, the "Food Security Program Fund," the "Lingap Para Sa
43

Mahihirap Program Fund," and the "Rural/Urban Development Infrastructure

44

Program Fund," all of which contained a special provision requiring "prior

45

consultation" with the Member s of Congress for the release of the funds.

It was in the year 2000 that the "Priority Development Assistance Fund" (PDAF)
46

appeared in the GAA. The requirement of "prior consultation with the respective
 Representative of the District" before PDAF funds were directly released to the
implementing agency concerned was explicitly stated in the 2000 PDAF Article.
Moreover, 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. The succeeding PDAF provisions remained the same in view of
47

the re-enactment of the 2000 GAA for the year 2001.

48

F. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (Arroyo) Administration (2001-2010).

The 2002 PDAF Article was brief and straightforward as it merely contained a single
49

special provision ordering the release of the funds directly to the implementing
agency or local government unit concerned, without further qualifications. The
following year, 2003, the same single provision was present, with simply an
50

expansion of purpose and express authority to realign. Nevertheless, the provisions

in the 2003 budgets of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and 51

the DepEd required prior consultation with Members of Congress on the aspects of
52

implementation delegation and project list submission, respectively. In 2004, the

2003 GAA was re-enacted. 53

In 2005, the PDAF Article provided that the PDAF shall be used "to fund priority
54

programs and projects under the ten point agenda of the national government and
shall be released directly to the implementing agencies." It also introduced the
program menu concept, which is essentially a list of general programs and
55

implementing agencies from which a particular PDAF project may be subsequently

chosen by the identifying authority. The 2005 GAA was re-enacted in 2006 and 56

hence, operated on the same bases. In similar regard, the program menu concept
was consistently integrated into the 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 GAAs.
57 58 59 60

Textually, the PDAF Articles from 2002 to 2010 were silent with respect to the specific
amounts allocated for the individual legislators, as well as their participation in the
proposal and identification of PDAF projects to be funded. In contrast to the PDAF
Articles, however, the provisions under the DepEd School Building Program and the
DPWH budget, similar to its predecessors, explicitly required prior consultation with
the concerned Member of Congress anent certain aspects of project implementation.
61

Significantly, it was during this era that provisions which allowed formal participation
of non-governmental organizations (NGO) in the implementation of government
projects were introduced. In the Supplemental Budget for 2006, with respect to the
appropriation for school buildings, NGOs were, by law, encouraged to participate. For
such purpose, the law stated that "the amount of at least ₱250 Million of the ₱500
Million allotted for the construction and completion of school buildings shall be made
available to NGOs including the Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chambers of
Commerce and Industry, Inc. for its "Operation Barrio School" program, with
capability and proven track records in the construction of public school buildings x x
x." The same allocation was made available to NGOs in the 2007 and 2009 GAAs
62

under the DepEd Budget. Also, it was in 2007 that the Government Procurement
63

Policy Board (GPPB) issued Resolution No. 12-2007 dated June 29, 2007 (GPPB
64

Resolution 12-2007), amending the implementing rules and regulations of RA 65

9184, the Government Procurement Reform Act, to include, as a form of negotiated

66

procurement, the procedure whereby the Procuring Entity (the implementing

67 68

agency) may enter into a memorandum of agreement with an NGO, provided that
 "an appropriation law or ordinance earmarks an amount to be specifically contracted
out to NGOs." 69

G. Present Administration (2010-Present).

Differing from previous PDAF Articles but similar to the CDF Articles, the
2011 PDAF Article included an express statement on lump-sum amounts
70

allocated for individual legislators and the Vice-President: Representatives were

given ₱70 Million each, broken down into ₱40 Million for "hard projects" and ₱30
Million for "soft projects"; while ₱200 Million was given to each Senator as well as the
Vice-President, with a ₱100 Million allocation each for "hard" and "soft projects."
Likewise, a provision on realignment of funds was included, but with the qualification
that it may be allowed only once. The same provision also allowed the Secretaries of
Education, Health, Social Welfare and Development, Interior and Local Government,
Environment and Natural Resources, Energy, and Public Works and Highways to
realign PDAF Funds, with the further conditions that: (a) realignment is within the
same implementing unit and same project category as the original project, for
infrastructure projects; (b) allotment released has not yet been obligated for the
original scope of work, and (c) the request for realignment is with the concurrence of
the legislator concerned. 71

In the 2012 and 2013 PDAF Articles, it is stated that the "identification of projects
72 73

and/or designation of beneficiaries shall conform to the priority list, standard or

design prepared by each implementing agency (priority list requirement) x x x."
However, as practiced, it would still be the individual legislator who would
choose and identify the project from the said priority list. 74

Provisions on legislator allocations as well as fund realignment were included

75 76

in the 2012 and 2013 PDAF Articles; but the allocation for the Vice-President, which
was pegged at ₱200 Million in the 2011 GAA, had been deleted. In addition, the 2013
PDAF Article now allowed LGUs to be identified as implementing agencies if they
have the technical capability to implement the projects. Legislators were also
77

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
78

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. 79

III. History of Presidential Pork Barrel in the Philippines.

While the term "Pork Barrel" has been typically associated with lump-sum, discretionary
funds of Members of Congress, the present cases and the recent controversies on the
matter have, however, shown that the term‘s usage has expanded to include certain
funds of the President such as the Malampaya Funds and the Presidential Social
Fund.

On the one hand, the Malampaya Funds was created as a special fund under Section 8 of 80

Presidential Decree No. (PD) 910, issued by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos (Marcos)
81

on March 22, 1976. In enacting the said law, Marcos recognized the need to set up a special
fund to help intensify, strengthen, and consolidate government efforts relating to the
 exploration, exploitation, and development of indigenous energy resources vital to economic
growth. Due to the energy-related activities of the government in the Malampaya natural
82

gas field in Palawan, or the "Malampaya Deep Water Gas-to-Power Project", the special
83

fund created under PD 910 has been currently labeled as Malampaya Funds.

On the other hand the Presidential Social Fund was created under Section 12, Title IV of 84

PD 1869, or the Charter of the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR).
85

PD 1869 was similarly issued by Marcos on July 11, 1983. More than two (2) years after, he
amended PD 1869 and accordingly issued PD 1993 on October 31, 1985, amending 86

Section 12 of the former law. As it stands, the Presidential Social Fund has been described
87

as a special funding facility managed and administered by the Presidential Management

Staff through which the President provides direct assistance to priority programs and projects
not funded under the regular budget. It is sourced from the share of the government in the
aggregate gross earnings of PAGCOR. 88

IV. Controversies in the Philippines.

Over the decades, "pork" funds in the Philippines have increased tremendously, owing in no 89

small part to previous Presidents who reportedly used the "Pork Barrel" in order to gain
congressional support. It was in 1996 when the first controversy surrounding the "Pork
90

Barrel" erupted. Former Marikina City Representative Romeo Candazo (Candazo), then an
anonymous source, "blew the lid on the huge sums of government money that regularly went
into the pockets of legislators in the form of kickbacks." He said that "the kickbacks were
91

‘SOP‘ (standard operating procedure) among legislators and ranged from a low 19 percent to
a high 52 percent of the cost of each project, which could be anything from dredging, rip
rapping, sphalting, concreting, and construction of school buildings." "Other sources of
92

kickbacks that Candazo identified were public funds intended for medicines and textbooks. A
few days later, the tale of the money trail became the banner story of the Philippine Daily
Inquirer issue of August 13, 1996, accompanied by an illustration of a roasted pig." "The 93

publication of the stories, including those about congressional initiative allocations of certain
lawmakers, including ₱3.6 Billion for a Congressman, sparked public outrage." 94

Thereafter, or in 2004, several concerned citizens sought the nullification of the PDAF as
enacted in the 2004 GAA for being unconstitutional. Unfortunately, for lack of "any pertinent
evidentiary support that illegal misuse of PDAF in the form of kickbacks has become a
common exercise of unscrupulous Members of Congress," the petition was dismissed. 95

Recently, or in July of the present year, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) began its
probe into allegations that "the government has been defrauded of some ₱10 Billion over the
past 10 years 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
96

sworn affidavits of six (6) whistle-blowers who declared that JLN Corporation – "JLN"
standing for Janet Lim Napoles (Napoles) – had swindled billions of pesos from the public
coffers for "ghost projects" using no fewer than 20 dummy NGOs for an entire decade. While
the NGOs were supposedly the ultimate recipients of PDAF funds, the whistle-blowers
declared that the money was diverted into Napoles‘ private accounts. Thus, after its
97

investigation on the Napoles controversy, criminal complaints were filed before the Office of
the Ombudsman, charging five (5) lawmakers for Plunder, and three (3) other lawmakers for
Malversation, Direct Bribery, and Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Also
recommended to be charged in the complaints are some of the lawmakers‘ chiefs -of-staff or
representatives, the heads and other officials of three (3) implementing agencies, and the
several presidents of the NGOs set up by Napoles. 98
On August 16, 2013, the Commission on Audit (CoA) released the results of a three-year
audit investigation covering the use of legislators' PDAF from 2007 to 2009, or during the
99

last three (3) years of the Arroyo administration. The purpose of the audit was to determine
the propriety of releases of funds under PDAF and the Various Infrastructures including Local
Projects (VILP) by the DBM, the application of these funds and the implementation of
100

projects by the appropriate implementing agencies and several government-owned-and-

controlled corporations (GOCCs). The total releases covered by the audit amounted to
101

₱8.374 Billion in PDAF and ₱32.664 Billion in VILP, representing 58% and 32%, respectively,
of the total PDAF and VILP releases that were found to have been made nationwide during
the audit period. Accordingly, the Co A‘s findings contained in its Report No. 2012-03 (CoA
102

Report), entitled "Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and Various Infrastructures
including Local Projects (VILP)," were made public, the highlights of which are as follows: 103

● Amounts released for projects identified by a considerable number of legislators

significantly exceeded their respective allocations.

● Amounts were released for projects outside of legislative districts of sponsoring

members of the Lower House.

● Total VILP releases for the period exceeded the total amount appropriated under
the 2007 to 2009 GAAs.

● Infrastructure projects were constructed on private lots without these having been
turned over to the government.

● Significant amounts were released to implementing agencies without the latter‘s

endorsement and without considering their mandated functions, administrative and
technical capabilities to implement projects.

● Implementation of most livelihood projects was not undertaken by the

implementing agencies themselves but by NGOs endorsed by the proponent
legislators to which the Funds were transferred.

● The funds were transferred to the NGOs in spite of the absence of any
appropriation law or ordinance.

● Selection of the NGOs were not compliant with law and regulations.

● Eighty-Two (82) NGOs entrusted with implementation of seven hundred seventy

two (772) projects amount to ₱6.156 Billion were either found questionable, or
submitted questionable/spurious documents, or failed to liquidate in whole or in part
their utilization of the Funds.

● Procurement by the NGOs, as well as some implementing agencies, of goods and

services reportedly used in the projects were not compliant with law.

As for the "Presidential Pork Barrel", whistle-blowers alleged that" at least ₱900 Million from
royalties in the operation of the Malampaya gas project off Palawan province intended for
agrarian reform beneficiaries has gone into a dummy NGO." According to incumbent CoA
104

Chairperson Maria Gracia Pulido Tan (CoA Chairperson), the CoA is, as of this writing, in
the process of preparing "one consolidated report" on the Malampaya Funds. 105
V. The Procedural Antecedents.

Spurred in large part by the findings contained in the CoA Report and the Napoles
controversy, several petitions were lodged before the Court similarly seeking that the "Pork
Barrel System" be declared unconstitutional. To recount, the relevant procedural antecedents
in these cases are as follows:

On August 28, 2013, petitioner Samson S. Alcantara (Alcantara), President of the Social Justice
Society, filed a Petition for Prohibition of even date under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (Alcantara
Petition), seeking that the "Pork Barrel System" be declared unconstitutional, and a writ of prohibition
be issued permanently restraining respondents Franklin M. Drilon and Feliciano S. Belmonte, Jr.,
in their respective capacities as the incumbent Senate President and Speaker of the House of
Representatives, from further taking any steps to enact legislation appropriating funds for the "Pork
Barrel System," in whatever form and by whatever name it may be called, and from approving further
releases pursuant thereto. The Alcantara Petition was docketed as G.R. No. 208493.
106

On September 3, 2013, petitioners Greco Antonious Beda B. Belgica, Jose L. Gonzalez, Reuben M.
Abante, Quintin Paredes San Diego (Belgica, et al.), and Jose M. Villegas, Jr. (Villegas) filed an
Urgent Petition For Certiorari and Prohibition With Prayer For The Immediate Issuance of Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated August 27, 2013 under Rule 65
of the Rules of Court (Belgica Petition), seeking that the annual "Pork Barrel System," presently
embodied in the provisions of the GAA of 2013 which provided for the 2013 PDAF, and the
Executive‘s lump-sum, discretionary funds, such as the Malampaya Funds and the Presidential
Social Fund, be declared unconstitutional and null and void for being acts constituting grave abuse
107

of discretion. Also, they pray that the Court issue a TRO against respondents Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr.,
Florencio B. Abad (Secretary Abad) and Rosalia V. De Leon, in their respective capacities as the
incumbent Executive Secretary, Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM),
and National Treasurer, or their agents, for them to immediately cease any expenditure under the
aforesaid funds. Further, they pray that the Court order the foregoing respondents to release to the
CoA and to the public: (a) "the complete schedule/list of legislators who have availed of their PDAF
and VILP from the years 2003 to 2013, specifying the use of the funds, the project or activity and the
recipient entities or individuals, and all pertinent data thereto"; and (b) "the use of the Executive‘s
lump-sum, discretionary funds, including the proceeds from the x x x Malampaya Funds and
remittances from the PAGCOR x x x from 2003 to 2013, specifying the x x x project or activity and
the recipient entities or individuals, and all pertinent data thereto." Also, they pray for the "inclusion
108

in budgetary deliberations with the Congress of all presently off-budget, lump-sum, discretionary
funds including, but not limited to, proceeds from the Malampaya Funds and remittances from the
PAGCOR." The Belgica Petition was docketed as G.R. No. 208566.
109 110

Lastly, on September 5, 2013, petitioner Pedrito M. Nepomuceno (Nepomuceno), filed a Petition

dated August 23, 2012 (Nepomuceno Petition), seeking that the PDAF be declared unconstitutional,
and a cease and desist order be issued restraining President Benigno Simeon S. Aquino III
(President Aquino) and Secretary Abad from releasing such funds to Members of Congress and,
instead, allow their release to fund priority projects identified and approved by the Local
Development Councils in consultation with the executive departments, such as the DPWH, the
Department of Tourism, the Department of Health, the Department of Transportation, and
Communication and the National Economic Development Authority. The Nepomuceno Petition was
111

docketed as UDK-14951. 112

On September 10, 2013, the Court issued a Resolution of even date (a) consolidating all cases; (b)
requiring public respondents to comment on the consolidated petitions; (c) issuing a TRO
(September 10, 2013 TRO) enjoining the DBM, National Treasurer, the Executive Secretary, or any
of the persons acting under their authority from releasing (1) the remaining PDAF allocated to
Members of Congress under the GAA of 2013, and (2) Malampaya Funds under the phrase "for such
other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President" pursuant to Section 8 of PD 910 but
not for the purpose of "financing energy resource development and exploitation programs and
projects of the government‖ under the same provision; and (d) setting the consolidated cases for
Oral Arguments on October 8, 2013.

On September 23, 2013, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Consolidated Comment
(Comment) of even date before the Court, seeking the lifting, or in the alternative, the partial lifting
with respect to educational and medical assistance purposes, of the Court‘s September 10, 2013
TRO, and that the consolidated petitions be dismissed for lack of merit. 113

On September 24, 2013, the Court issued a Resolution of even date directing petitioners to reply to
the Comment.

Petitioners, with the exception of Nepomuceno, filed their respective replies to the Comment: (a) on
September 30, 2013, Villegas filed a separate Reply dated September 27, 2013 (Villegas Reply); (b)
on October 1, 2013, Belgica, et al. filed a Reply dated September 30, 2013 (Belgica Reply); and (c)
on October 2, 2013, Alcantara filed a Reply dated October 1, 2013.

On October 1, 2013, the Court issued an Advisory providing for the guidelines to be observed by the
parties for the Oral Arguments scheduled on October 8, 2013. In view of the technicality of the
issues material to the present cases, incumbent Solicitor General Francis H. Jardeleza (Solicitor
General) was directed to bring with him during the Oral Arguments representative/s from the DBM
and Congress who would be able to competently and completely answer questions related to,
among others, the budgeting process and its implementation. Further, the CoA Chairperson was
appointed as amicus curiae and thereby requested to appear before the Court during the Oral
Arguments.

On October 8 and 10, 2013, the Oral Arguments were conducted. Thereafter, the Court directed the
parties to submit their respective memoranda within a period of seven (7) days, or until October 17,
2013, which the parties subsequently did.

The Issues Before the Court

Based on the pleadings, and as refined during the Oral Arguments, the following are the main issues
for the Court‘s resolution:

I. Procedural Issues.

Whether or not (a) the issues raised in the consolidated petitions involve an actual and justiciable
controversy; (b) the issues raised in the consolidated petitions are matters of policy not subject to
judicial review; (c) petitioners have legal standing to sue; and (d) the Court‘s Decision dated August
19, 1994 in G.R. Nos. 113105, 113174, 113766, and 113888, entitled "Philippine Constitution
Association v. Enriquez" (Philconsa) and Decision dated April 24, 2012 in G.R. No. 164987, entitled
114

"Lawyers Against Monopoly and Poverty v. Secretary of Budget and Management" (LAMP) bar the
115
re-litigatio n of the issue of constitutionality of the "Pork Barrel System" under the principles of res
judicata and stare decisis.

II. Substantive Issues on the "Congressional Pork Barrel."

Whether or not the 2013 PDAF Article and all other Congressional Pork Barrel Laws similar thereto
are unconstitutional considering that they violate the principles of/constitutional provisions on (a)
separation of powers; (b) non-delegability of legislative power; (c) checks and balances; (d)
accountability; (e) political dynasties; and (f) local autonomy.

III. Substantive Issues on the "Presidential Pork Barrel."

Whether or not the phrases (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, and (b) "to finance the
116

priority infrastructure development projects and to finance the restoration of damaged or destroyed
facilities due to calamities, as may be directed and authorized by the Office of the President of the
Philippines" under Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, relating to the Presidential
Social Fund, are unconstitutional insofar as they constitute undue delegations of legislative power.

These main issues shall be resolved in the order that they have been stated. In addition, the Court
shall also tackle certain ancillary issues as prompted by the present cases.

The Court’s Ruling

The petitions are partly granted.

I. Procedural Issues.

The prevailing rule in constitutional litigation is that no question involving the constitutionality or
validity of a law or governmental act may be heard and decided by the Court unless there is
compliance with the legal requisites for judicial inquiry, namely:
117

a) there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power;
b) the person challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity of the subject
act or issuance: locus standi;
c) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity ; and
d) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case. 118

Of these requisites, case law states that the first two are the most important and, therefore, shall be
119

discussed forthwith.

A. Existence of an Actual Case or Controversy.

By constitutional fiat, judicial power operates only when there is an actual case or controversy. This
120

is embodied in Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution which pertinently states that "judicial
power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which
are legally demandable and enforceable x x x." Jurisprudence provides that an actual case or
controversy is one which "involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims,
susceptible of judicial resolution as distinguished from a hypothetical or abstract difference or
dispute. In other words, "there must be a contrariety of legal rights that can be interpreted
121
and enforced on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence." Related to the requirement of an
122

actual case or controversy is the requirement of "ripeness," meaning that the questions raised for
constitutional scrutiny are already ripe for adjudication. "A question is ripe for adjudication when the
act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it. It is a
prerequisite that something had then been accomplished or performed by either branch before a
court may come into the picture, and the petitioner must allege the existence of an immediate or
threatened injury to itself as a result of the challenged action." "Withal, courts will decline to pass
123

upon constitutional issues through advisory opinions, bereft as they are of authority to resolve
hypothetical or moot questions." 124

Based on these principles, the Court finds that there exists an actual and justiciable controversy in
these cases.

The requirement of contrariety of legal rights is clearly satisfied by the antagonistic positions of the
parties on the constitutionality of the "Pork Barrel System." Also, the questions in these consolidated
cases are ripe for adjudication since the challenged funds and the provisions allowing for their
utilization – such as the 2013 GAA for the PDAF, PD 910 for the Malampaya Funds and PD 1869, as
amended by PD 1993, for the Presidential Social Fund – are currently existing and operational;
hence, there exists an immediate or threatened injury to petitioners as a result of the unconstitutional
use of these public funds.

As for the PDAF, the Court must dispel the notion that the issues related thereto had been rendered
moot and academic by the reforms undertaken by respondents. A case becomes moot when there is
no more actual controversy between the parties or no useful purpose can be served in passing upon
the merits. Differing from this description, the Court observes that respondents‘ proposed line-item
125

budgeting scheme would not terminate the controversy nor diminish the useful purpose for its
resolution since said reform is geared towards the 2014 budget, and not the 2013 PDAF Article
which, being a distinct subject matter, remains legally effective and existing. Neither will the
President‘s declaration that he had already "abolished the PDAF" render the issues on PDAF moot
precisely because the Executive branch of government has no constitutional authority to nullify or
annul its legal existence. By constitutional design, the annulment or nullification of a law may be
done either by Congress, through the passage of a repealing law, or by the Court, through a
declaration of unconstitutionality. Instructive on this point is the following exchange between
Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio (Justice Carpio) and the Solicitor General during the Oral
Arguments: 126

Justice Carpio: The President has taken an oath to faithfully execute the law, correct? Solicitor
127

General Jardeleza: Yes, Your Honor.

Justice Carpio: And so the President cannot refuse to implement the General Appropriations Act,
correct?

Solicitor General Jardeleza: Well, that is our answer, Your Honor. In the case, for example of the
PDAF, the President has a duty to execute the laws but in the face of the outrage over PDAF, the
President was saying, "I am not sure that I will continue the release of the soft projects," and that
started, Your Honor. Now, whether or not that … (interrupted)

Justice Carpio: Yeah. I will grant the President if there are anomalies in the project, he has the power
to stop the releases in the meantime, to investigate, and that is Section 38 of Chapter 5 of Book 6 of
the Revised Administrative Code x x x. So at most the President can suspend, now if the President
128

believes that the PDAF is unconstitutional, can he just refuse to implement it?
Solicitor General Jardeleza: No, Your Honor, as we were trying to say in the specific case of the
PDAF because of the CoA Report, because of the reported irregularities and this Court can take
judicial notice, even outside, outside of the COA Report, you have the report of the whistle-blowers,
the President was just exercising precisely the duty ….

xxxx

Justice Carpio: Yes, and that is correct. You‘ve seen the CoA Report, there are anomalies, you stop
and investigate, and prosecute, he has done that. But, does that mean that PDAF has been
repealed?

Solicitor General Jardeleza: No, Your Honor x x x.

xxxx

Justice Carpio: So that PDAF can be legally abolished only in two (2) cases. Congress passes a law
to repeal it, or this Court declares it unconstitutional, correct?

Solictor General Jardeleza: Yes, Your Honor.

Justice Carpio: The President has no power to legally abolish PDAF. (Emphases supplied)

Even on the assumption of mootness, jurisprudence, nevertheless, dictates that "the moot and
academic‘ principle is not a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the Court in resolving a
case." The Court will decide cases, otherwise moot, if: first, there is a grave violation of the
Constitution; second, the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is
involved; third, when the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to
guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and fourth, the case is capable of repetition yet evading
review.129

The applicability of the first exception is clear from the fundamental posture of petitioners – they
essentially allege grave violations of the Constitution with respect to, inter alia, the principles of
separation of powers, non-delegability of legislative power, checks and balances, accountability and
local autonomy.

The applicability of the second exception is also apparent from the nature of the interests involved

– the constitutionality of the very system within which significant amounts of public funds have been
and continue to be utilized and expended undoubtedly presents a situation of exceptional character
as well as a matter of paramount public interest. The present petitions, in fact, have been lodged at a
time when the system‘s flaws have never before been magnified. To the Court‘s mind, the
coalescence of the CoA Report, the accounts of numerous whistle-blowers, and the government‘s
own recognition that reforms are needed "to address the reported abuses of the
PDAF" demonstrates a prima facie pattern of abuse which only underscores the importance of the
130

matter. It is also by this finding that the Court finds petitioners‘ claims as not merely theorized,
speculative or hypothetical. Of note is the weight accorded by the Court to the findings made by the
CoA which is the constitutionally-mandated audit arm of the government. In Delos Santos v. CoA, a 131

recent case wherein the Court upheld the CoA‘s disallowance of irregularly disbursed PDAF funds, it
was emphasized that:
The COA is endowed with enough latitude to determine, prevent, and disallow irregular,
unnecessary, excessive, extravagant or unconscionable expenditures of government funds. It is
tasked to be vigilant and conscientious in safeguarding the proper use of the government's, and
ultimately the people's, property. The exercise of its general audit power is among the constitutional
mechanisms that gives life to the check and balance system inherent in our form of government.

It is the general policy of the Court to sustain the decisions of administrative authorities, especially
one which is constitutionally-created, such as the CoA, not only on the basis of the doctrine of
separation of powers but also for their presumed expertise in the laws they are entrusted to enforce.
Findings of administrative agencies are accorded not only respect but also finality when the decision
and order are not tainted with unfairness or arbitrariness that would amount to grave abuse of
discretion. It is only when the CoA has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, that this Court entertains a petition
questioning its rulings. x x x. (Emphases supplied)

Thus, if only for the purpose of validating the existence of an actual and justiciable controversy in
these cases, the Court deems the findings under the CoA Report to be sufficient.

The Court also finds the third exception to be applicable largely due to the practical need for a
definitive ruling on the system‘s constitutionality. As disclosed during the Oral Arguments, the CoA
Chairperson estimates that thousands of notices of disallowances will be issued by her office in
connection with the findings made in the CoA Report. In this relation, Associate Justice Marvic Mario
Victor F. Leonen (Justice Leonen) pointed out that all of these would eventually find their way to the
courts. Accordingly, there is a compelling need to formulate controlling principles relative to the
132

issues raised herein in order to guide the bench, the bar, and the public, not just for the expeditious
resolution of the anticipated disallowance cases, but more importantly, so that the government may
be guided on how public funds should be utilized in accordance with constitutional principles.

Finally, the application of the fourth exception is called for by the recognition that the preparation and
passage of the national budget is, by constitutional imprimatur, an affair of annual occurrence. The
133

relevance of the issues before the Court does not cease with the passage of a "PDAF -free budget
for 2014." The evolution of the "Pork Barrel System," by its multifarious iterations throughout the
134

course of history, lends a semblance of truth to petitioners‘ claim that "the same dog will just
resurface wearing a different collar." In Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary, the government had
135 136

already backtracked on a previous course of action yet the Court used the "capable of repetition but
evading review" exception in order "to prevent similar questions from re- emerging." The situation
137

similarly holds true to these cases. Indeed, the myriad of issues underlying the manner in which
certain public funds are spent, if not resolved at this most opportune time, are capable of repetition
and hence, must not evade judicial review.

B. Matters of Policy: the Political Question Doctrine.

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
government." Essentially, the foregoing limitation is a restatement of the political question doctrine
138

which, under the classic formulation of Baker v. Carr, applies when there is found, among others, "a
139

textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department,"

"a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it" or "the impossibility of
deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non- judicial discretion." Cast
against this light, respondents submit that the "the political branches are in the best position not only
to perform budget-related reforms but also to do them in response to the specific demands of their
constituents" and, as such, "urge the Court not to impose a solution at this stage." 140
The Court must deny respondents‘ submission.

Suffice it to state that the issues raised before the Court do not present political but legal questions
which are within its province to resolve. A political question refers to "those questions which, under
the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full
discretionary authority has been delegated to the Legislature or executive branch of the
Government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular
measure." The intrinsic constitutionality of the "Pork Barrel System" is not an issue dependent upon
141

the wisdom of the political branches of government but rather a legal one which the Constitution
itself has commanded the Court to act upon. Scrutinizing the contours of the system along
constitutional lines is a task that the political branches of government are incapable of rendering
precisely because it is an exercise of judicial power. More importantly, the present Constitution has
not only vested the Judiciary the right to exercise judicial power but essentially makes it a duty to
proceed therewith. Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution cannot be any clearer: "The judicial
power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.
It includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality
of the Government." In Estrada v. Desierto, the expanded concept of judicial power under the 1987
142

Constitution and its effect on the political question doctrine was explained as follows:143

To a great degree, the 1987 Constitution has narrowed the reach of the political question doctrine
when it expanded the power of judicial review of this court not only to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable but also to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
any branch or instrumentality of government. Heretofore, the judiciary has focused on the "thou shalt
not's" of the Constitution directed against the exercise of its jurisdiction. With the new provision,
however, courts are given a greater prerogative to determine what it can do to prevent grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality
of government. Clearly, the new provision did not just grant the Court power of doing nothing. x x x
(Emphases supplied)

It must also be borne in mind that ― when the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional
boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other departments; does not in reality nullify
or invalidate an act of the legislature or the executive, but only asserts the solemn and sacred
obligation assigned to it by the Constitution." To a great extent, the Court is laudably cognizant of
144

the reforms undertaken by its co-equal branches of government. But it is by constitutional force that
the Court must faithfully perform its duty. Ultimately, it is the Court‘s avowed intention that a
resolution of these cases would not arrest or in any manner impede the endeavors of the two other
branches but, in fact, help ensure that the pillars of change are erected on firm constitutional
grounds. After all, it is in the best interest of the people that each great branch of government, within
its own sphere, contributes its share towards achieving a holistic and genuine solution to the
problems of society. For all these reasons, the Court cannot heed respondents‘ plea for judicial
restraint.

C. Locus Standi.

"The gist of the question of standing is whether a party alleges such personal stake in the outcome
of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of
issues upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions. Unless a
person is injuriously affected in any of his constitutional rights by the operation of statute or
ordinance, he has no standing." 145
Petitioners have come before the Court in their respective capacities as citizen-taxpayers and
accordingly, assert that they "dutifully contribute to the coffers of the National Treasury." Clearly, as
146

taxpayers, they possess the requisite standing to question the validity of the existing "Pork Barrel
System" under which the taxes they pay have been and continue to be utilized. It is undeniable that
petitioners, as taxpayers, are bound to suffer from the unconstitutional usage of public funds, if the
Court so rules. Invariably, taxpayers have been allowed to sue where there is a claim that public
funds are illegally disbursed or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose, or that
public funds are wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law, as in these
147

cases.

Moreover, as citizens, petitioners have equally fulfilled the standing requirement given that the
issues they have raised may be classified as matters "of transcendental importance, of overreaching
significance to society, or of paramount public interest." The CoA Chairperson‘s statement during
148

the Oral Arguments that the present controversy involves "not merely a systems failure" but a
"complete breakdown of controls" amplifies, in addition to the matters above-discussed, the
149

seriousness of the issues involved herein. Indeed, of greater import than the damage caused by the
illegal expenditure of public funds is the mortal wound inflicted upon the fundamental law by the
enforcement of an invalid statute. All told, petitioners have sufficient locus standi to file the instant
150

cases.

D. Res Judicata and Stare Decisis.

Res judicata (which means a "matter adjudged") and stare decisis non quieta et movere (or simply,
stare decisis which means "follow past precedents and do not disturb what has been settled") are
general procedural law principles which both deal with the effects of previous but factually similar
dispositions to subsequent cases. For the cases at bar, the Court examines the applicability of these
principles in relation to its prior rulings in Philconsa and LAMP.

The focal point of res judicata is the judgment. The principle states that a judgment on the merits in a
previous case rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction would bind a subsequent case if,
between the first and second actions, there exists an identity of parties, of subject matter, and of
causes of action. This required identity is not, however, attendant hereto since Philconsa and
151

LAMP, respectively involved constitutional challenges against the 1994 CDF Article and 2004 PDAF
Article, whereas the cases at bar call for a broader constitutional scrutiny of the entire "Pork Barrel
System." Also, the ruling in LAMP is essentially a dismissal based on a procedural technicality – and,
thus, hardly a judgment on the merits – in that petitioners therein failed to present any "convincing
proof x x x showing that, indeed, there were direct releases of funds to the Members of Congress,
who actually spend them according to their sole discretion" or "pertinent evidentiary support to
demonstrate the illegal misuse of PDAF in the form of kickbacks and has become a common
exercise of unscrupulous Members of Congress." As such, the Court up held, in view of the
presumption of constitutionality accorded to every law, the 2004 PDAF Article, and saw "no need to
review or reverse the standing pronouncements in the said case." Hence, for the foregoing reasons,
the res judicata principle, insofar as the Philconsa and LAMP cases are concerned, cannot apply.

On the other hand, the focal point of stare decisis is the doctrine created. The principle, entrenched
under Article 8 of the Civil Code, evokes the general rule that, for the sake of certainty, a conclusion
152

reached in one case should be doctrinally applied to those that follow if the facts are substantially the
same, even though the parties may be different. It proceeds from the first principle of justice that,
absent any powerful countervailing considerations, like cases ought to be decided alike. Thus, where
the same questions relating to the same event have been put forward by the parties similarly
situated as in a previous case litigated and decided by a competent court, the rule of stare decisis is
a bar to any attempt to re-litigate the same issue.153
Philconsa was the first case where a constitutional challenge against a Pork Barrel provision, i.e.,
the 1994 CDF Article, was resolved by the Court. To properly understand its context, petitioners‘
posturing was that "the power given to the Members of Congress to propose and identify projects
and activities to be funded by the CDF is an encroachment by the legislature on executive power,
since said power in an appropriation act is in implementation of the law" and that "the proposal and
identification of the projects do not involve the making of laws or the repeal and amendment thereof,
the only function given to the Congress by the Constitution." In deference to the foregoing
154

submissions, the Court reached the following main conclusions: one, under the Constitution, the
power of appropriation, or the "power of the purse," belongs to Congress; two, the power of
appropriation carries with it the power to specify the project or activity to be funded under the
appropriation law and it can be detailed and as broad as Congress wants it to be; and, three, the
proposals and identifications made by Members of Congress are merely recommendatory. At once, it
is apparent that the Philconsa resolution was a limited response to a separation of powers problem,
specifically on the propriety of conferring post-enactment identification authority to Members of
Congress. On the contrary, the present cases call for a more holistic examination of (a) the inter-
relation between the CDF and PDAF Articles with each other, formative as they are of the entire
"Pork Barrel System" as well as (b) the intra-relation of post-enactment measures contained within a
particular CDF or PDAF Article, including not only those related to the area of project identification
but also to the areas of fund release and realignment. The complexity of the issues and the broader
legal analyses herein warranted may be, therefore, considered as a powerful countervailing reason
against a wholesale application of the stare decisis principle.

In addition, the Court observes that the Philconsa ruling was actually riddled with inherent
constitutional inconsistencies which similarly countervail against a full resort to stare decisis. As may
be deduced from the main conclusions of the case, Philconsa‘s fundamental premise in allowing
Members of Congress to propose and identify of projects would be that the said identification
authority is but an aspect of the power of appropriation which has been constitutionally lodged in
Congress. From this premise, the contradictions may be easily seen. If the authority to identify
projects is an aspect of appropriation and the power of appropriation is a form of legislative power
thereby lodged in Congress, then it follows that: (a) it is Congress which should exercise such
authority, and not its individual Members; (b) such authority must be exercised within the prescribed
procedure of law passage and, hence, should not be exercised after the GAA has already been
passed; and (c) such authority, as embodied in the GAA, has the force of law and, hence, cannot be
merely recommendatory. Justice Vitug‘s Concurring Opinion in the same case sums up the
Philconsa quandary in this wise: "Neither would it be objectionable for Congress, by law, to
appropriate funds for such specific projects as it may be minded; to give that authority, however, to
the individual members of Congress in whatever guise, I am afraid, would be constitutionally
impermissible." As the Court now largely benefits from hindsight and current findings on the matter,
among others, the CoA Report, the Court must partially abandon its previous ruling in Philconsa
insofar as it validated the post-enactment identification authority of Members of Congress on the
guise that the same was merely recommendatory. This postulate raises serious constitutional
inconsistencies which cannot be simply excused on the ground that such mechanism is "imaginative
as it is innovative." Moreover, it must be pointed out that the recent case of Abakada Guro Party List
v. Purisima (Abakada) has effectively overturned Philconsa‘s allowance of post-enactment legislator
155

participation in view of the separation of powers principle. These constitutional inconsistencies and
the Abakada rule will be discussed in greater detail in the ensuing section of this Decision.

As for LAMP, suffice it to restate that the said case was dismissed on a procedural technicality and,
hence, has not set any controlling doctrine susceptible of current application to the substantive
issues in these cases. In fine, stare decisis would not apply.

II. Substantive Issues.

A. Definition of Terms.

Before the Court proceeds to resolve the substantive issues of these cases, it must first define the
terms "Pork Barrel System," "Congressional Pork Barrel," and "Presidential Pork Barrel" as they are
essential to the ensuing discourse.

Petitioners define the term "Pork Barrel System" as the "collusion between the Legislative and
Executive branches of government to accumulate lump-sum public funds in their offices with
unchecked discretionary powers to determine its distribution as political largesse." They assert that
156

the following elements make up the Pork Barrel System: (a) lump-sum funds are allocated through
the appropriations process to an individual officer; (b) the officer is given sole and broad discretion in
determining how the funds will be used or expended; (c) the guidelines on how to spend or use the
funds in the appropriation are either vague, overbroad or inexistent; and (d) projects funded are
intended to benefit a definite constituency in a particular part of the country and to help the political
careers of the disbursing official by yielding rich patronage benefits. They further state that the Pork
157

Barrel System is comprised of two (2) kinds of discretionary public funds: first, the Congressional (or
Legislative) Pork Barrel, currently known as the PDAF; and, second, the Presidential (or Executive)
158

Pork Barrel, specifically, the Malampaya Funds under PD 910 and the Presidential Social Fund
under PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993. 159

Considering petitioners‘ submission and in reference to its local concept and legal history, the Court
defines the Pork Barrel System as the collective body of rules and practices that govern the manner
by which lump-sum, discretionary funds, primarily intended for local projects, are utilized through the
respective participations of the Legislative and Executive branches of government, including its
members. The Pork Barrel System involves two (2) kinds of lump-sum discretionary funds:

First, there is the Congressional Pork Barrel which is herein defined as a kind of lump-sum,
discretionary fund wherein legislators, either individually or collectively organized into committees,
are able to effectively control certain aspects of the fund’s utilization through various post-enactment
measures and/or practices. In particular, petitioners consider the PDAF, as it appears under the 2013
GAA, as Congressional Pork Barrel since it is, inter alia, a post-enactment measure that allows
individual legislators to wield a collective power; and
160

Second, there is the Presidential Pork Barrel which is herein defined as a kind of lump-sum,
discretionary fund which allows the President to determine the manner of its utilization. For reasons
earlier stated, the Court shall delimit the use of such term to refer only to the Malampaya Funds
161

and the Presidential Social Fund.

With these definitions in mind, the Court shall now proceed to discuss the substantive issues of
these cases.

B. Substantive Issues on the Congressional Pork Barrel.

1. Separation of Powers.

a. Statement of Principle.

The principle of separation of powers refers to the constitutional demarcation of the three
fundamental powers of government. In the celebrated words of Justice Laurel in Angara v. Electoral
Commission, it means that the "Constitution has blocked out with deft strokes and in bold lines,
162

allotment of power to the executive, the legislative and the judicial departments of the
government." To the legislative branch of government, through Congress, belongs the power to
163 164

make laws; to the executive branch of government, through the President, belongs the power to
165

enforce laws; and to the judicial branch of government, through the Court, belongs the power to
166

interpret laws. Because the three great powers have been, by constitutional design, ordained in this
respect, "each department of the government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its
jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own sphere." Thus, "the legislature has no authority to
167

execute or construe the law, the executive has no authority to make or construe the law, and the
judiciary has no power to make or execute the law." The principle of separation of powers and its
168

concepts of autonomy and independence stem from the notion that the powers of government must
be divided to avoid concentration of these powers in any one branch; the division, it is hoped, would
avoid any single branch from lording its power over the other branches or the citizenry. To achieve
169

this purpose, the divided power must be wielded by co-equal branches of government that are
equally capable of independent action in exercising their respective mandates. Lack of
independence would result in the inability of one branch of government to check the arbitrary or self-
interest assertions of another or others. 170

Broadly speaking, there is a violation of the separation of powers principle when one branch of
government unduly encroaches on the domain of another. US Supreme Court decisions instruct that
the principle of separation of powers may be violated in two (2) ways: firstly, "one branch may
interfere impermissibly with the other’s performance of its constitutionally assigned function"; and
171

"alternatively, the doctrine may be violated when one branch assumes a function that more properly
is entrusted to another." In other words, there is a violation of the principle when there is
172

impermissible (a) interference with and/or (b) assumption of another department‘s functions.

The enforcement of the national budget, as primarily contained in the GAA, is indisputably a function
both constitutionally assigned and properly entrusted to the Executive branch of government. In
Guingona, Jr. v. Hon. Carague (Guingona, Jr.), the Court explained that the phase of budget
173

execution "covers the various operational aspects of budgeting" and accordingly includes "the
evaluation of work and financial plans for individual activities," the "regulation and release of funds"
as well as all "other related activities" that comprise the budget execution cycle. This is rooted in
174

the principle that the allocation of power in the three principal branches of government is a grant of
all powers inherent in them. Thus, unless the Constitution provides otherwise, the Executive
175

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.

In view of the foregoing, the Legislative branch of government, much more any of its members,
should not cross over the field of implementing the national budget since, as earlier stated, the same
is properly the domain of the Executive. Again, in Guingona, Jr., the Court stated that "Congress
enters the picture when it deliberates or acts on the budget proposals of the President. Thereafter,
Congress, "in the exercise of its own judgment and wisdom, formulates an appropriation act
precisely following the process established by the Constitution, which specifies that no money may
be paid from the Treasury except in accordance with an appropriation made by law." Upon approval
and passage of the GAA, Congress‘ law -making role necessarily comes to an end and from there
the Executive‘s role of implementing the national budget begins. So as not to blur the constitutional
boundaries between them, Congress must "not concern it self with details for implementation by the
Executive."176

The foregoing cardinal postulates were definitively enunciated in Abakada where the Court held that
"from the moment the law becomes effective, any provision of 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 and is thus unconstitutional." It must be clarified, however, that since the
177

restriction only pertains to "any role in the implementation or enforcement of the law," Congress may
still exercise its oversight function which is a mechanism of checks and balances that the
Constitution itself allows. But it must be made clear that Congress‘ role must be confined to mere
oversight. Any post-enactment-measure allowing legislator participation beyond oversight is bereft of
any constitutional basis and hence, tantamount to impermissible interference and/or assumption of
executive functions. As the Court ruled in Abakada: 178

Any post-enactment congressional measure x x x should be limited to scrutiny and investigation. In 1âwphi1

particular, congressional oversight must be confined to the following:

(1) scrutiny based primarily on Congress‘ power of appropriation and the budget hearings
conducted in connection with it, its power to ask heads of departments to appear before and
be heard by either of its Houses on any matter pertaining to their departments and its power
of confirmation; and

(2) investigation and monitoring of the implementation of laws pursuant to the power of
Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation.

Any action or step beyond that will undermine the separation of powers guaranteed by the
Constitution. (Emphases supplied)

b. Application.

In these cases, petitioners submit that the Congressional Pork Barrel – among others, the 2013
PDAF Article – "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." They state that the findings and recommendations in the
179

CoA Report provide "an illustration of how absolute and definitive the power of legislators wield over
project implementation in complete violation of the constitutional principle of separation of
powers." Further, they point out that the Court in the Philconsa case only allowed the CDF to exist
180

on the condition that individual legislators limited their role to recommending projects and not if they
actually dictate their implementation.181

For their part, respondents counter that the separations of powers principle has not been violated
since the President maintains "ultimate authority to control the execution of the GAA‖ and that he
"retains the final discretion to reject" the legislators‘ proposals. They maintain that the Court, in
182

Philconsa, "upheld the constitutionality of the power of members of Congress to propose and identify
projects so long as such proposal and identification are recommendatory." As such, they claim that
183

"everything in the Special Provisions [of the 2013 PDAF Article follows the Philconsa framework, and
hence, remains constitutional." 184

The Court rules in favor of petitioners.

As may be observed from its legal history, the defining feature of all forms of Congressional Pork
Barrel would be the authority of legislators to participate in the post-enactment phases of project
implementation.

At its core, legislators – may it be through project lists, prior consultations or program menus –
185 186 187

have been consistently accorded post-enactment authority to identify the projects they desire to be
funded through various Congressional Pork Barrel allocations. Under the 2013 PDAF Article, the
statutory authority of legislators to identify projects post-GAA may be construed from the import of
Special Provisions 1 to 3 as well as the second paragraph of Special Provision 4. To elucidate,
Special Provision 1 embodies the program menu feature which, as evinced from past PDAF Articles,
allows individual legislators to identify PDAF projects for as long as the identified project falls under a
general program listed in the said menu. Relatedly, Special Provision 2 provides that the
implementing agencies shall, within 90 days from the GAA is passed, submit to Congress a more
detailed priority list, standard or design prepared and submitted by implementing agencies from
which the legislator may make his choice. The same provision further authorizes legislators to
identify PDAF projects outside his district for as long as the representative of the district concerned
concurs in writing. Meanwhile, Special Provision 3 clarifies that PDAF projects refer to "projects to be
identified by legislators" and thereunder provides the allocation limit for the total amount of projects
188

identified by each legislator. Finally, paragraph 2 of Special Provision 4 requires that any modification
and revision of the project identification "shall be submitted to the House Committee on
Appropriations and the Senate Committee on Finance for favorable endorsement to the DBM or the
implementing agency, as the case may be." From the foregoing special provisions, it cannot be
seriously doubted that legislators have been accorded post-enactment authority to identify PDAF
projects.

Aside from the area of project identification, legislators have also been accorded post-enactment
authority in the areas of fund release and realignment. Under the 2013 PDAF Article, the statutory
authority of legislators to participate in the area of fund release through congressional committees is
contained in Special Provision 5 which explicitly states that "all request for release of funds shall be
supported by the documents prescribed under Special Provision No. 1 and favorably endorsed by
House Committee on Appropriations and the Senate Committee on Finance, as the case may be";
while their statutory authority to participate in the area of fund realignment is contained in: first ,
paragraph 2, Special Provision 4 which explicitly state s, among others, that "any realignment of
189

funds shall be submitted to the House Committee on Appropriations and the Senate Committee on
Finance for favorable endorsement to the DBM or the implementing agency, as the case may be‖ ;
and, second , paragraph 1, also of Special Provision 4 which authorizes the "Secretaries of
Agriculture, Education, Energy, Interior and Local Government, Labor and Employment, Public
Works and Highways, Social Welfare and Development and Trade and Industry x x x to approve
190

realignment from one project/scope to another within the allotment received from this Fund, subject
to among others (iii) the request is with the concurrence of the legislator concerned."

Clearly, these post-enactment measures which govern the areas of project identification, fund
release and fund realignment are not related to functions of congressional oversight and, hence,
allow legislators to intervene and/or assume duties that properly belong to the sphere of budget
execution. Indeed, by virtue of the foregoing, legislators have been, in one form or another,
authorized to participate in – as Guingona, Jr. puts it – "the various operational aspects of
budgeting," including "the evaluation of work and financial plans for individual activities" and the
"regulation and release of funds" in violation of the separation of powers principle. The fundamental
rule, as categorically articulated in Abakada, cannot be overstated – from the moment the law
becomes effective, any provision of 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
and is thus unconstitutional. That the said authority is treated as merely recommendatory in nature
191

does not alter its unconstitutional tenor since the prohibition, to repeat, covers any role in the
implementation or enforcement of the law. Towards this end, the Court must therefore abandon its
ruling in Philconsa which sanctioned the conduct of legislator identification on the guise that the
same is merely recommendatory and, as such, respondents‘ reliance on the same falters altogether.

Besides, it must be pointed out that respondents have nonetheless failed to substantiate their
position that the identification authority of legislators is only of recommendatory import. Quite the
contrary, respondents – through the statements of the Solicitor General during the Oral Arguments –
have admitted that the identification of the legislator constitutes a mandatory requirement before his
PDAF can be tapped as a funding source, thereby highlighting the indispensability of the said act to
the entire budget execution process: 192

Justice Bernabe: Now, without the individual legislator’s identification of the project, can the PDAF of
the legislator be utilized?

Solicitor General Jardeleza: No, Your Honor.

Justice Bernabe: It cannot?

Solicitor General Jardeleza: It cannot… (interrupted)

Justice Bernabe: So meaning you should have the identification of the project by the individual
legislator?

Solicitor General Jardeleza: Yes, Your Honor.

xxxx

Justice Bernabe: In short, the act of identification is mandatory?

Solictor General Jardeleza: Yes, Your Honor. In the sense that if it is not done and then there is no
identification.

xxxx

Justice Bernabe: Now, would you know of specific instances when a project was implemented
without the identification by the individual legislator?

Solicitor General Jardeleza: I do not know, Your Honor; I do not think so but I have no specific
examples. I would doubt very much, Your Honor, because to implement, there is a need for a SARO
and the NCA. And the SARO and the NCA are triggered by an identification from the legislator.

xxxx

Solictor General Jardeleza: What we mean by mandatory, Your Honor, is we were replying to a
question, "How can a legislator make sure that he is able to get PDAF Funds?" It is mandatory in the
sense that he must identify, in that sense, Your Honor. Otherwise, if he does not identify, he cannot
avail of the PDAF Funds and his district would not be able to have PDAF Funds, only in that sense,
Your Honor. (Emphases supplied)

Thus, for all the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby declares the 2013 PDAF Article as well as all
other provisions of law which similarly allow legislators to wield any form of post-enactment authority
in the implementation or enforcement of the budget, unrelated to congressional oversight, as
violative of the separation of powers principle and thus unconstitutional. Corollary thereto, informal
practices, through which legislators have effectively intruded into the proper phases of budget
execution, must be deemed as acts of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction and, hence, accorded the same unconstitutional treatment. That such informal practices
do exist and have, in fact, been constantly observed throughout the years has not been substantially
disputed here. As pointed out by Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno (Chief Justice Sereno)
during the Oral Arguments of these cases: 193

Chief Justice Sereno:

Now, from the responses of the representative of both, the DBM and two (2) Houses of Congress, if
we enforces the initial thought that I have, after I had seen the extent of this research made by my
staff, that neither the Executive nor Congress frontally faced the question of constitutional
compatibility of how they were engineering the budget process. In fact, the words you have been
using, as the three lawyers of the DBM, and both Houses of Congress has also been using is
surprise; surprised that all of these things are now surfacing. In fact, I thought that what the 2013
PDAF provisions did was to codify in one section all the past practice that had been done since
1991. In a certain sense, we should be thankful that they are all now in the PDAF Special Provisions.
x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Ultimately, legislators cannot exercise powers which they do not have, whether through formal
measures written into the law or informal practices institutionalized in government agencies, else the
Executive department be deprived of what the Constitution has vested as its own.

2. Non-delegability of Legislative Power.

a. Statement of Principle.

As an adjunct to the separation of powers principle, legislative power shall be exclusively exercised
194

by the body to which the Constitution has conferred the same. In particular, Section 1, Article VI of
the 1987 Constitution states that such power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines
which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the
people by the provision on initiative and referendum. Based on this provision, it is clear that only
195

Congress, acting as a bicameral body, and the people, through the process of initiative and
referendum, may constitutionally wield legislative power and no other. This premise embodies the
principle of non-delegability of legislative power, and the only recognized exceptions thereto would
be: (a) delegated legislative power to local governments which, by immemorial practice, are allowed
to legislate on purely local matters; and (b) constitutionally-grafted exceptions such as the authority
196

of the President to, by law, exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national
policy in times of war or other national emergency, or fix within specified limits, and subject to such
197

limitations and restrictions as Congress may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage
and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development
program of the Government. 198

Notably, the principle of non-delegability should not be confused as a restriction to delegate rule-
making authority to implementing agencies for the limited purpose of either filling up the details of
the law for its enforcement (supplementary rule-making) or ascertaining facts to bring the law into
actual operation (contingent rule-making). The conceptual treatment and limitations of delegated
199

rule-making were explained in the case of People v. Maceren as follows:

200

The grant of the rule-making power to administrative agencies is a relaxation of the principle of
separation of powers and is an exception to the nondelegation of legislative powers. Administrative
regulations or "subordinate legislation" calculated to promote the public interest are necessary
because of "the growing complexity of modern life, the multiplication of the subjects of governmental
regulations, and the increased difficulty of administering the law."

xxxx
Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that the rule-making power must be confined to details for
regulating the mode or proceeding to carry into effect the law as it has been enacted. The power
cannot be extended to amending or expanding the statutory requirements or to embrace matters not
covered by the statute. Rules that subvert the statute cannot be sanctioned. (Emphases supplied)

b. Application.

In the cases at bar, the Court observes that the 2013 PDAF Article, insofar as it confers post-
enactment identification authority to individual legislators, violates the principle of non-delegability
since said legislators are effectively allowed to individually exercise the power of appropriation,
which – as settled in Philconsa – is lodged in Congress. That the power to appropriate must be
201

exercised only through legislation is clear from Section 29(1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution
which states that: "No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an
appropriation made by law." To understand what constitutes an act of appropriation, the Court, in
Bengzon v. Secretary of Justice and Insular Auditor (Bengzon), held that the power of appropriation
202

involves (a) the setting apart by law of a certain sum from the public revenue for (b) a specified
purpose. Essentially, under the 2013 PDAF Article, individual legislators are given a personal lump-
sum fund from which they are able to dictate (a) how much from such fund would go to (b) a specific
project or beneficiary that they themselves also determine. As these two (2) acts comprise the
exercise of the power of appropriation as described in Bengzon, and given that the 2013 PDAF
Article authorizes individual legislators to perform the same, undoubtedly, said legislators have been
conferred the power to legislate which the Constitution does not, however, allow. Thus, keeping with
the principle of non-delegability of legislative power, the Court hereby declares the 2013 PDAF
Article, as well as all other forms of Congressional Pork Barrel which contain the similar legislative
identification feature as herein discussed, as unconstitutional.

3. Checks and Balances.

a. Statement of Principle; Item-Veto Power.

The fact that the three great powers of government are intended to be kept separate and distinct
does not mean that they are absolutely unrestrained and independent of each other. The
Constitution has also provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to secure
coordination in the workings of the various departments of the government. 203

A prime example of a constitutional check and balance would be the President’s power to veto an
item written into an appropriation, revenue or tariff bill submitted to him by Congress for approval
through a process known as "bill presentment." The President‘s item-veto power is found in Section
27(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution which reads as follows:

Sec. 27. x x x.

xxxx

(2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an appropriation,
revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does not object.

The presentment of appropriation, revenue or tariff bills to the President, wherein he may exercise
his power of item-veto, forms part of the "single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered,
procedures" for law-passage as specified under the Constitution. As stated in Abakada, the final
204
step in the law-making process is the "submission of the bill to the President for approval. Once
approved, it takes effect as law after the required publication." 205

Elaborating on the President‘s item-veto power and its relevance as a check on the legislature, the
Court, in Bengzon, explained that: 206

The former Organic Act and the present Constitution of the Philippines make the Chief Executive an
integral part of the law-making power. His disapproval of a bill, commonly known as a veto, is
essentially a legislative act. The questions presented to the mind of the Chief Executive are precisely
the same as those the legislature must determine in passing a bill, except that his will be a broader
point of view.

The Constitution is a limitation upon the power of the legislative department of the government, but
in this respect it is a grant of power to the executive department. The Legislature has the affirmative
power to enact laws; the Chief Executive has the negative power by the constitutional exercise of
which he may defeat the will of the Legislature. It follows that the Chief Executive must find his
authority in the Constitution. But in exercising that authority he may not be confined to rules of strict
construction or hampered by the unwise interference of the judiciary. The courts will indulge every
intendment in favor of the constitutionality of a veto in the same manner as they will presume the
constitutionality of an act as originally passed by the Legislature. (Emphases supplied)

The justification for the President‘s item-veto power rests on a variety of policy goals such as to
prevent log-rolling legislation, impose fiscal restrictions on the legislature, as well as to fortify the
207

executive branch‘s role in the budgetary process. In Immigration and Naturalization Service v.
208

Chadha, the US Supreme Court characterized the President‘s item-power as "a salutary check upon
the legislative body, calculated to guard the community against the effects of factions, precipitancy,
or of any impulse unfriendly to the public good, which may happen to influence a majority of that
body"; phrased differently, it is meant to "increase the chances in favor of the community against the
passing of bad laws, through haste, inadvertence, or design." 209

For the President to exercise his item-veto power, it necessarily follows that there exists a proper
"item" which may be the object of the veto. An item, as defined in the field of appropriations, pertains
to "the particulars, the details, the distinct and severable parts of the appropriation or of the bill." In
the case of Bengzon v. Secretary of Justice of the Philippine Islands, the US Supreme Court
210

characterized an item of appropriation as follows:

An item of an 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.
(Emphases supplied)

On this premise, it may be concluded that an appropriation bill, to ensure that the President may be
able to exercise his power of item veto, must contain "specific appropriations of money" and not only
"general provisions" which provide for parameters of appropriation.

Further, it is significant to point out that an item of appropriation must be an item characterized by
singular correspondence – meaning an allocation of a specified singular amount for a specified
singular purpose, otherwise known as a "line-item." This treatment not only allows the item to be
211

consistent with its definition as a "specific appropriation of money" but also ensures that the
President may discernibly veto the same. Based on the foregoing formulation, the existing Calamity
Fund, Contingent Fund and the Intelligence Fund, being appropriations which state a specified
amount for a specific purpose, would then be considered as "line- item" appropriations which are
rightfully subject to item veto. Likewise, it must be observed that an appropriation may be validly
apportioned into component percentages or values; however, it is crucial that each percentage or
value must be allocated for its own corresponding purpose for such component to be considered as
a proper line-item. Moreover, as Justice Carpio correctly pointed out, a valid appropriation may even
have several related purposes that are by accounting and budgeting practice considered as one
purpose, e.g., MOOE (maintenance and other operating expenses), in which case the related
purposes shall be deemed sufficiently specific for the exercise of the President‘s item veto power.
Finally, special purpose funds and discretionary funds would equally square with the constitutional
mechanism of item-veto for as long as they follow the rule on singular correspondence as herein
discussed. Anent special purpose funds, it must be added that Section 25(4), Article VI of the 1987
Constitution requires that the "special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose for which it is
intended, and shall be supported by funds actually available as certified by the National Treasurer, or
t o be raised by a corresponding revenue proposal therein." Meanwhile, with respect to discretionary
funds, Section 2 5(6), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution requires that said funds "shall be disbursed
only for public purposes to be supported by appropriate vouchers and subject to such guidelines as
may be prescribed by law."

In contrast, what beckons constitutional infirmity are appropriations which merely provide for a
singular lump-sum amount to be tapped as a source of funding for multiple purposes. Since such
appropriation type necessitates the further determination of both the actual amount to be expended
and the actual purpose of the appropriation which must still be chosen from the multiple purposes
stated in the law, it cannot be said that the appropriation law already indicates a "specific
appropriation of money‖ and hence, without a proper line-item which the President may veto. As a
practical result, the President would then be faced with the predicament of either vetoing the entire
appropriation if he finds some of its purposes wasteful or undesirable, or approving the entire
appropriation so as not to hinder some of its legitimate purposes. Finally, it may not be amiss to state
that such arrangement also raises non-delegability issues considering that the implementing
authority would still have to determine, again, both the actual amount to be expended and the actual
purpose of the appropriation. Since the foregoing determinations constitute the integral aspects of
the power to appropriate, the implementing authority would, in effect, be exercising legislative
prerogatives in violation of the principle of non-delegability.

b. Application.

In these cases, petitioners claim that "in the current x x x system where the PDAF is a lump-sum
appropriation, the legislator‘s identification of the projects after the passage of the GAA denies the
President the chance to veto that item later on." Accordingly, they submit that the "item veto power
212

of the President mandates that appropriations bills adopt line-item budgeting" and that "Congress
cannot choose a mode of budgeting which effectively renders the constitutionally-given power of the
President useless."213

On the other hand, respondents maintain that the text of the Constitution envisions a process which
is intended to meet the demands of a modernizing economy and, as such, lump-sum appropriations
are essential to financially address situations which are barely foreseen when a GAA is enacted.
They argue that the decision of the Congress to create some lump-sum appropriations is
constitutionally allowed and textually-grounded. 214

The Court agrees with petitioners.

Under the 2013 PDAF Article, the amount of ₱24.79 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. As these intermediate appropriations are made by
legislators only after the GAA is passed and hence, outside of the law, it necessarily means that the
actual items of PDAF appropriation would not have been written into the General Appropriations Bill
and thus effectuated without veto consideration. This kind of lump-sum/post-enactment legislative
identification budgeting system fosters the creation of a budget within a budget" which subverts the
prescribed procedure of presentment and consequently impairs the President‘s power of item veto.
As petitioners aptly point out, the above-described system forces the President to decide between
(a) accepting the entire ₱24.79 Billion PDAF allocation without knowing the specific projects of 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. 215

Moreover, even without its post-enactment legislative identification feature, the 2013 PDAF Article
would remain constitutionally flawed since it would then operate as a prohibited form of lump-sum
appropriation above-characterized. In particular, the lump-sum amount of ₱24.79 Billion would be
treated as a mere funding source allotted for multiple purposes of spending, i.e., scholarships,
medical missions, assistance to 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 further determination and, therefore, does not readily indicate a
discernible item which may be subject to the President‘s power of item veto.

In fact, on the accountability side, the same lump-sum budgeting scheme has, as the CoA
Chairperson relays, "limited state auditors from obtaining relevant data and information that would
aid in more stringently auditing the utilization of said Funds." Accordingly, she recommends the
216

adoption of a "line by line budget or amount per proposed program, activity or project, and per
implementing agency." 217

Hence, in view of the reasons above-stated, the Court finds the 2013 PDAF Article, as well as all
Congressional Pork Barrel Laws of similar operation, to be unconstitutional. That such budgeting
system provides for a greater degree of flexibility to account for future contingencies cannot be an
excuse to defeat what the Constitution requires. Clearly, the first and essential truth of the matter is
that unconstitutional means do not justify even commendable ends. 218

c. Accountability.

Petitioners further relate that the system under which various forms of Congressional Pork Barrel
operate defies public accountability as it renders Congress incapable of checking itself or its
Members. In particular, they point out that the Congressional Pork Barrel "gives each legislator a
direct, financial interest in the smooth, speedy passing of the yearly budget" which turns them "from
fiscalizers" into "financially-interested partners." They also claim that the system has an effect on
219

re- election as "the PDAF excels in self-perpetuation of elective officials." Finally, they add that the
"PDAF impairs the power of impeachment" as such "funds are indeed quite useful, ‘to well,
accelerate the decisions of senators.‘" 220

The Court agrees in part.

The aphorism forged under Section 1, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, which states that "public
office is a public trust," is an overarching reminder that every instrumentality of government should
exercise their official functions only in accordance with the principles of the Constitution which
embodies the parameters of the people‘s trust. The notion of a public trust connotes
accountability, hence, the various mechanisms in the Constitution which are designed to exact
221

accountability from public officers.

Among others, an accountability mechanism with which the proper expenditure of public funds may
be checked is the power of congressional oversight. As mentioned in Abakada, congressional
222

oversight may be performed either through: (a) scrutiny based primarily on Congress‘ power of
appropriation and the budget hearings conducted in connection with it, its power to ask heads of
departments to appear before and be heard by either of its Houses on any matter pertaining to their
departments and its power of confirmation; or (b) investigation and monitoring of the
223

implementation of laws pursuant to the power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation. 224

The Court agrees with petitioners that certain features embedded in some forms of Congressional
Pork Barrel, among others the 2013 PDAF Article, has an effect on congressional oversight. The fact
that individual legislators are given post-enactment roles in the implementation of the budget makes
it difficult for them to become disinterested "observers" when scrutinizing, investigating or monitoring
the implementation of the appropriation law. To a certain extent, the conduct of oversight would be
tainted as said legislators, who are vested with post-enactment authority, would, in effect, be
checking on activities in which they themselves participate. Also, it must be pointed out that this very
same concept of post-enactment authorization runs afoul of Section 14, Article VI of the 1987
Constitution which provides that:

Sec. 14. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may personally appear as counsel
before any court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative
bodies. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any contract with, or in any
franchise or special privilege granted by the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or controlled corporation, or its subsidiary,
during his term of office. He 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. (Emphasis
supplied)

Clearly, allowing legislators to intervene in the various phases of project implementation – a matter
before another office of government – renders them susceptible to taking undue advantage of their
own office.

The Court, however, cannot completely agree that the same post-enactment authority and/or the
individual legislator‘s control of his PDAF per se would allow him to perpetuate himself in office.
Indeed, while the Congressional Pork Barrel and a legislator‘s use thereof may be linked to this area
of interest, the use of his PDAF for re-election purposes is a matter which must be analyzed based
on particular facts and on a case-to-case basis.

Finally, while the Court accounts for the possibility that the close operational proximity between
legislators and the Executive department, through the former‘s post-enactment participation, may
affect the process of impeachment, this matter largely borders on the domain of politics and does not
strictly concern the Pork Barrel System‘s intrinsic constitutionality. As such, it is an improper subject
of judicial assessment.

In sum, insofar as its post-enactment features dilute congressional oversight and violate Section 14,
Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, thus impairing public accountability, the 2013 PDAF Article and
other forms of Congressional Pork Barrel of similar nature are deemed as unconstitutional.

4. Political Dynasties.

One of the petitioners submits that the Pork Barrel System enables politicians who are members of
political dynasties to accumulate funds to perpetuate themselves in power, in contravention of
Section 26, Article II of the 1987 Constitution which states that:
225
Sec. 26. The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit
political dynasties as may be defined by law. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

At the outset, suffice it to state that the foregoing provision is considered as not self-executing due to
the qualifying phrase "as may be defined by law." In this respect, said provision does not, by and of
itself, provide a judicially enforceable constitutional right but merely specifies guideline for legislative
or executive action. Therefore, since there appears to be no standing law which crystallizes the
226

policy on political dynasties for enforcement, the Court must defer from ruling on this issue.

In any event, the Court finds the above-stated argument on this score to be largely speculative since
it has not been properly demonstrated how the Pork Barrel System would be able to propagate
political dynasties.

5. Local Autonomy.

The State‘s policy on local autonomy is principally stated in Section 25, Article II and Sections 2 and
3, Article X of the 1987 Constitution which read as follows:

ARTICLE II

Sec. 25. The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments.

ARTICLE X

Sec. 2. The territorial and political subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy.

Sec. 3. The Congress shall enact a local government code which shall provide for a more responsive
and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization with
effective mechanisms of recall, initiative, and referendum, allocate among the different local
government units their powers, responsibilities, and resources, and provide for the qualifications,
election, appointment and removal, term, salaries, powers and functions and duties of local officials,
and all other matters relating to the organization and operation of the local units.

Pursuant thereto, Congress enacted RA 7160, otherwise known as the "Local Government Code of
227

1991" (LGC), wherein the policy on local autonomy had been more specifically explicated as follows:

Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. – (a) It is hereby declared the policy of the State that the territorial and
political subdivisions of the State shall enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them
to attain their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners
in the attainment of national goals. Toward this end, the State shall provide for a more responsive
and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization whereby
local government units shall be given more powers, authority, responsibilities, and resources. The
process of decentralization shall proceed from the National Government to the local government
units.

xxxx

(c) It is likewise the policy of the State to require all national agencies and offices to conduct periodic
consultations with appropriate local government units, nongovernmental and people‘s organizations,
and other concerned sectors of the community before any project or program is implemented in their
respective jurisdictions. (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
The above-quoted provisions of the Constitution and the LGC reveal the policy of the State to
empower local government units (LGUs) to develop and ultimately, become self-sustaining and
effective contributors to the national economy. As explained by the Court in Philippine Gamefowl
Commission v. Intermediate Appellate Court: 228

This is as good an occasion as any to stress the commitment of the Constitution to the policy of local
autonomy which is intended to provide the needed impetus and encouragement to the development
of our local political subdivisions as "self - reliant communities." In the words of Jefferson, "Municipal
corporations are the small republics from which the great one derives its strength." The vitalization of
local governments will enable their inhabitants to fully exploit their resources and more important,
imbue them with a deepened sense of involvement in public affairs as members of the body politic.
This objective could be blunted by undue interference by the national government in purely local
affairs which are best resolved by the officials and inhabitants of such political units. The decision we
reach today conforms not only to the letter of the pertinent laws but also to the spirit of the
Constitution. (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
229

In the cases at bar, petitioners contend that the Congressional Pork Barrel goes against the
constitutional principles on local autonomy since it allows district representatives, who are national
officers, to substitute their judgments in utilizing public funds for local development. The Court
230

agrees with petitioners.

Philconsa described the 1994 CDF as an attempt "to make equal the unequal" and that "it is also a
recognition that individual members of Congress, far more than the President and their
congressional colleagues, are likely to be knowledgeable about the needs of their respective
constituents and the priority to be given each project." Drawing strength from this pronouncement,
231

previous legislators justified its existence by stating that "the relatively small projects implemented
under the Congressional Pork Barrel complement and link the national development goals to the
countryside and grassroots as well as to depressed areas which are overlooked by central agencies
which are preoccupied with mega-projects. Similarly, in his August 23, 2013 speech on the
232

"abolition" of PDAF and budgetary reforms, President Aquino mentioned that the Congressional Pork
Barrel was originally established for a worthy goal, which is to enable the representatives to identify
projects for communities that the LGU concerned cannot afford. 233

Notwithstanding these declarations, the Court, however, finds an inherent defect in the system which
actually belies the avowed intention of "making equal the unequal." In particular, the Court observes
that the gauge of PDAF and CDF allocation/division is based solely on the fact of office, without
taking into account the specific interests and peculiarities of the district the legislator represents. In
this regard, the allocation/division limits are clearly not based on genuine parameters of equality,
wherein economic or geographic indicators have been taken into consideration. As a result, 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. To add, what rouses graver scrutiny is that even Senators and Party-List Representatives
– and in some years, even the Vice-President – who do not represent any locality, receive funding
from the Congressional Pork Barrel as well. These certainly are anathema to the Congressional Pork
Barrel‘s original intent which is "to make equal the unequal." Ultimately, the PDAF and CDF had
become personal funds under the effective control of each legislator and given unto them on the sole
account of their office.

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) which are already
legally mandated to "assist the corresponding sanggunian in setting the direction of economic and
social development, and coordinating development efforts within its territorial
jurisdiction." Considering that LDCs are instrumentalities whose functions are essentially geared
234

towards managing local affairs, their programs, policies and resolutions should not be overridden
235

nor duplicated by individual legislators, who are national officers that have no law-making authority
except only when acting as a body. The undermining effect on local autonomy caused by the post-
enactment authority conferred to the latter was succinctly put by petitioners in the following wise:
236

With PDAF, a Congressman can simply bypass the local development council and initiate projects
on his own, and even take sole credit for its execution. Indeed, this type of personality-driven project
identification has not only contributed little to the overall development of the district, but has even
contributed to "further weakening infrastructure planning and coordination efforts of the government."

Thus, insofar as individual legislators are authorized to intervene in purely local matters and thereby
subvert genuine local autonomy, the 2013 PDAF Article as well as all other similar forms of
Congressional Pork Barrel is deemed unconstitutional.

With this final issue on the Congressional Pork Barrel resolved, the Court now turns to the
substantive issues involving the Presidential Pork Barrel.

C. Substantive Issues on the Presidential Pork Barrel.

1. Validity of Appropriation.

Petitioners preliminarily assail Section 8 of PD 910 and Section 12 of PD1869 (now, amended by PD
1993), which respectively provide for the Malampaya Funds and the Presidential Social Fund, as
invalid appropriations laws since they do not have the "primary and specific" purpose of authorizing
the release of public funds from the National Treasury. Petitioners submit that Section 8 of PD 910 is
not an appropriation law since the "primary and specific‖ purpose of PD 910 is the creation of an
Energy Development Board and Section 8 thereof only created a Special Fund incidental
thereto. In similar regard, petitioners argue that Section 12 of PD 1869 is neither a valid
237

appropriations law since the allocation of the Presidential Social Fund is merely incidental to the
"primary and specific" purpose of PD 1869 which is the amendment of the Franchise and Powers of
PAGCOR. In view of the foregoing, petitioners suppose that such funds are being used without any
238

valid law allowing for their proper appropriation in violation of Section 29(1), Article VI of the 1987
Constitution which states that: "No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of
an appropriation made by law." 239

The Court disagrees.

"An appropriation made by law‖ under the contemplation of Section 29(1), Article VI of the 1987
Constitution exists when a provision of law (a) sets apart a determinate or determinable amount of
240

money and (b) allocates the same for a particular public purpose. These two minimum designations
of amount and purpose stem from the very definition of the word "appropriation," which means "to
allot, assign, set apart or apply to a particular use or purpose," and hence, if written into the law,
demonstrate that the legislative intent to appropriate exists. As the Constitution "does not provide or
prescribe any particular form of words or religious recitals in which an authorization or appropriation
by Congress shall be made, except that it be ‘made by law,‘" an appropriation law may – according
to Philconsa – be "detailed and as broad as Congress wants it to be" for as long as the intent to
appropriate may be gleaned from the same. As held in the case of Guingona, Jr.: 241

There is no provision in our Constitution that provides or prescribes any particular form of words or
religious recitals in which an authorization or appropriation by Congress shall be made, except that it
be "made by law," such as precisely the authorization or appropriation under the questioned
presidential decrees. In other words, in terms of time horizons, an appropriation may be made
impliedly (as by past but subsisting legislations) as well as expressly for the current fiscal year (as by
enactment of laws by the present Congress), just as said appropriation may be made in general as
well as in specific terms. The Congressional authorization may be embodied in annual laws, such as
a general appropriations act or in special provisions of laws of general or special application which
appropriate public funds for specific public purposes, such as the questioned decrees. An
appropriation measure is sufficient if the legislative intention clearly and certainly appears from the
language employed (In re Continuing Appropriations, 32 P. 272), whether in the past or in the
present. (Emphases and underscoring supplied)

Likewise, as ruled by the US Supreme Court in State of Nevada v. La Grave: 242

To constitute an appropriation there must be money placed in a fund applicable to the designated
purpose. The word appropriate means to allot, assign, set apart or apply to a particular use or
purpose. An appropriation in the sense of the constitution means the setting apart a portion of the
public funds for a public purpose. No particular form of words is necessary for the purpose, if the
intention to appropriate is plainly manifested. (Emphases supplied)

Thus, based on the foregoing, the Court cannot sustain the argument that the appropriation must be
the "primary and specific" purpose of the law in order for a valid appropriation law to exist. To
reiterate, if a legal provision designates a determinate or determinable amount of money and
allocates the same for a particular public purpose, then the legislative intent to appropriate becomes
apparent and, hence, already sufficient to satisfy the requirement of an "appropriation made by law"
under contemplation of the Constitution.

Section 8 of PD 910 pertinently provides:

Section 8. Appropriations. x x x

All fees, revenues and receipts of the Board from any and all sources including receipts from service
contracts and agreements such as application and processing fees, signature bonus, discovery
bonus, production bonus; all money collected from concessionaires, representing unspent work
obligations, fines and penalties under the Petroleum Act of 1949; as well as the government share
representing royalties, rentals, production share on service contracts and similar payments on the
exploration, development and exploitation of energy resources, shall form part of a Special Fund to
be used to finance energy resource development and exploitation programs and projects of the
government and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President. (Emphases
supplied)

Whereas Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, reads:

Sec. 12. Special Condition of Franchise. — After deducting five (5%) percent as Franchise Tax, the
Fifty (50%) percent share of the Government in the aggregate gross earnings of the Corporation
from this Franchise, or 60% if the aggregate gross earnings be less than ₱150,000,000.00 shall be
set aside and shall accrue to the General Fund to finance the priority infrastructure development
projects and to finance the restoration of damaged or destroyed facilities due to calamities, as may
be directed and authorized by the Office of the President of the Philippines. (Emphases supplied)

Analyzing the legal text vis-à-vis the above-mentioned principles, it may then be concluded that (a)
Section 8 of PD 910, which creates a Special Fund comprised of "all fees, revenues, and receipts of
the Energy Development Board from any and all sources" (a determinable amount) "to be used to
finance energy resource development and exploitation programs and projects of the government and
for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President" (a specified public purpose),
and (b) Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, which similarly sets aside, "after deducting
five (5%) percent as Franchise Tax, the Fifty (50%) percent share of the Government in the
aggregate gross earnings of PAGCOR, or 60%, if the aggregate gross earnings be less than
₱150,000,000.00" (also a determinable amount) "to finance the priority infrastructure development
projects and x x x the restoration of damaged or destroyed facilities due to calamities, as may be
directed and authorized by the Office of the President of the Philippines" (also a specified public
purpose), are legal appropriations under Section 29(1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.

In this relation, it is apropos to note that the 2013 PDAF Article cannot be properly deemed as a
legal appropriation under the said constitutional provision precisely because, as earlier stated, it
contains post-enactment measures which effectively create a system of intermediate appropriations.
These intermediate appropriations are the actual appropriations meant for enforcement and since
they are made by individual legislators after the GAA is passed, they occur outside the law. As such,
the Court observes that the real appropriation made under the 2013 PDAF Article is not the ₱24.79
Billion allocated for the entire PDAF, but rather the post-enactment determinations made by the
individual legislators which are, to repeat, occurrences outside of the law. Irrefragably, the 2013
PDAF Article does not constitute an "appropriation made by law" since it, in its truest sense, only
authorizes individual legislators to appropriate in violation of the non-delegability principle as afore-
discussed.

2. Undue Delegation.

On a related matter, petitioners contend that Section 8 of PD 910 constitutes an undue delegation of
legislative power since the phrase "and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the
President" gives the President "unbridled discretion to determine for what purpose the funds will be
used." Respondents, on the other hand, urged the Court to apply the principle of ejusdem generis
243

to the same section and thus, construe the phrase "and for such other purposes as may be hereafter
directed by the President" to refer only to other purposes related "to energy resource development
and exploitation programs and projects of the government." 244

The Court agrees with petitioners‘ submissions.

While the designation of a determinate or determinable amount for a particular public purpose is
sufficient for a legal appropriation to exist, the appropriation law must contain adequate legislative
guidelines if the same law delegates rule-making authority to the Executive either for the purpose
245

of (a) filling up the details of the law for its enforcement, known as supplementary rule-making, or (b)
ascertaining facts to bring the law into actual operation, referred to as contingent rule-
making. There are two (2) fundamental tests to ensure that the legislative guidelines for delegated
246

rule-making are indeed adequate. The first test is called the "completeness test." Case law states
that a law is complete when it sets forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out, or
implemented by the delegate. On the other hand, the second test is called the "sufficient standard
test." Jurisprudence holds that a law lays down a sufficient standard when it provides adequate
guidelines or limitations in the law to map out the boundaries of the delegate‘s authority and prevent
the delegation from running riot. To be sufficient, the standard must specify the limits of the
247

delegate‘s authority, announce the legislative policy, and identify the conditions under which it is to
be implemented. 248

In view of the foregoing, the Court agrees with petitioners that 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 insofar as it does not lay down a sufficient standard to
adequately determine the limits of the President‘s authority with respect to the purpose for which the
Malampaya Funds may be used. As it reads, the said phrase gives the President wide latitude to use
the Malampaya Funds for any other purpose he may direct and, in effect, allows him to unilaterally
appropriate public funds beyond the purview of the law. That the subject phrase may be confined
only to "energy resource development and exploitation programs and projects of the government"
under the principle of ejusdem generis, meaning that the general word or phrase is to be construed
to include – or be restricted to – things akin to, resembling, or of the same kind or class as those
specifically mentioned, is belied by three (3) reasons: first, the phrase "energy resource
249

development and exploitation programs and projects of the government" states a singular and
general class and hence, cannot be treated as a statutory reference of specific things from which the
general phrase "for such other purposes" may be limited; second, the said phrase also exhausts the
class it represents, namely energy development programs of the government; and, third, the
250

Executive department has, in fact, used the Malampaya Funds for non-energy related purposes
under the subject phrase, thereby contradicting respondents‘ own position that it is limited only to
"energy resource development and exploitation programs and projects of the government." Thus, 251

while Section 8 of PD 910 may have passed the completeness test since the policy of energy
development is clearly deducible from its text, the phrase "and for such other purposes as may be
hereafter directed by the President" under the same provision of law should nonetheless be stricken
down as unconstitutional as it lies independently unfettered by any sufficient standard of the
delegating law. This notwithstanding, it must be underscored that the rest of Section 8, insofar as it
allows for the use of the Malampaya Funds "to finance energy resource development and
exploitation programs and projects of the government," remains legally effective and subsisting.
Truth be told, the declared unconstitutionality of the aforementioned phrase is but an assurance that
the Malampaya Funds would be used – as it should be used – only in accordance with the avowed
purpose and intention of PD 910.

As for the Presidential Social Fund, the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that Section 12 of PD
1869 has already been amended by PD 1993 which thus moots the parties‘ submissions on the
same. Nevertheless, since the amendatory provision may be readily examined under the current
252

parameters of discussion, the Court proceeds to resolve its constitutionality.

Primarily, Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, indicates that the Presidential Social
Fund may be used "to first, finance the priority infrastructure development projects and second, to
finance the restoration of damaged or destroyed facilities due to calamities, as may be directed and
authorized by the Office of the President of the Philippines." The Court finds that while the second
indicated purpose adequately curtails the authority of the President to spend the Presidential Social
Fund only for restoration purposes which arise from calamities, the first indicated purpose, however,
gives him carte blanche authority to use the same fund for any infrastructure project he may so
determine as a "priority". Verily, the law does not supply a definition of "priority in frastructure
development projects" and hence, leaves the President without any guideline to construe the same.
To note, the delimitation of a project as one of "infrastructure" is too broad of a classification since
the said term could pertain to any kind of facility. This may be deduced from its lexicographic
definition as follows: "the underlying framework of a system, especially public services and facilities
(such as highways, schools, bridges, sewers, and water-systems) needed to support commerce as
well as economic and residential development." In fine, the phrase "to finance the priority
253

infrastructure development projects" must be stricken down as unconstitutional since – similar to the
above-assailed provision under Section 8 of PD 910 – it lies independently unfettered by any
sufficient standard of the delegating law. As they are severable, all other provisions of Section 12 of
PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, remains legally effective and subsisting.

D. Ancillary Prayers. 1.

Petitioners’ Prayer to be Furnished Lists and Detailed Reports.

Aside from seeking the Court to declare the Pork Barrel System unconstitutional – as the Court did
so in the context of its pronouncements made in this Decision – petitioners equally pray that the
Executive Secretary and/or the DBM be ordered to release to the CoA and to the public: (a) "the
complete schedule/list of legislators who have availed of their PDAF and VILP from the years 2003
to 2013, specifying the use of the funds, the project or activity and the recipient entities or
individuals, and all pertinent data thereto" (PDAF Use Schedule/List); and (b) "the use of the
254

Executive‘s lump-sum, discretionary funds, including the proceeds from the x x x Malampaya Funds
and remittances from the PAGCOR x x x from 2003 to 2013, specifying the x x x project or activity
and the recipient entities or individuals, and all pertinent data thereto" (Presidential Pork Use
255

Report). Petitioners‘ prayer is grounded on Section 28, Article II and Section 7, Article III of the 1987
Constitution which read as follows:

ARTICLE II

Sec. 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a
policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.

ARTICLE III Sec. 7.

The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to
official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions,
as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the
citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.

The Court denies petitioners‘ submission.

Case law instructs that the proper remedy to invoke the right to information is to file a petition for
mandamus. As explained in the case of Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission: 256

While the manner of examining public records may be subject to reasonable regulation by the
government agency in custody thereof, the duty to disclose the information of public concern, and to
afford access to public records cannot be discretionary on the part of said agencies. Certainly, its
performance cannot be made contingent upon the discretion of such agencies. Otherwise, the
enjoyment of the constitutional right may be rendered nugatory by any whimsical exercise of agency
discretion. The constitutional duty, not being discretionary, its performance may be compelled by a
writ of mandamus in a proper case.

But what is a proper case for Mandamus to issue? In the case before Us, the public right to be
enforced and the concomitant duty of the State are unequivocably set forth in the Constitution.

The decisive question on the propriety of the issuance of the writ of mandamus in this case is,
whether the information sought by the petitioner is within the ambit of the constitutional guarantee.
(Emphases supplied)

Corollarily, in the case of Valmonte v. Belmonte Jr. (Valmonte), it has been clarified that the right to
257

information does not include the right to compel the preparation of "lists, abstracts, summaries and
the like." In the same case, it was stressed that it is essential that the "applicant has a well -defined,
clear and certain legal right to the thing demanded and that it is the imperative duty of defendant to
perform the act required." Hence, without the foregoing substantiations, the Court cannot grant a
particular request for information. The pertinent portions of Valmonte are hereunder quoted: 258
Although citizens are afforded the right to information and, pursuant thereto, are entitled to "access
to official records," the Constitution does not accord them a right to compel custodians of official
records to prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the like in their desire to acquire information on
matters of public concern.

It must be stressed that it is essential for a writ of mandamus to issue that the applicant has a well-
defined, clear and certain legal right to the thing demanded and that it is the imperative duty of
defendant to perform the act required. The corresponding duty of the respondent to perform the
required act must be clear and specific Lemi v. Valencia, G.R. No. L-20768, November 29,1968,126
SCRA 203; Ocampo v. Subido, G.R. No. L-28344, August 27, 1976, 72 SCRA 443.

The request of the petitioners fails to meet this standard, there being no duty on the part of
respondent to prepare the list requested. (Emphases supplied)

In these cases, aside from the fact that none of the petitions are in the nature of mandamus actions,
the Court finds that petitioners have failed to establish a "a well-defined, clear and certain legal right"
to be furnished by the Executive Secretary and/or the DBM of their requested PDAF Use
Schedule/List and Presidential Pork Use Report. Neither did petitioners assert any law or
administrative issuance which would form the bases of the latter‘s duty to furnish them with the
documents requested. While petitioners pray that said information be equally released to the CoA, it
must be pointed out that the CoA has not been impleaded as a party to these cases nor has it filed
any petition before the Court to be allowed access to or to compel the release of any official
document relevant to the conduct of its audit investigations. While the Court recognizes that the
information requested is a matter of significant public concern, however, if only to ensure that the
parameters of disclosure are properly foisted and so as not to unduly hamper the equally important
interests of the government, it is constrained to deny petitioners‘ prayer on this score, without
prejudice to a proper mandamus case which they, or even the CoA, may choose to pursue through a
separate petition.

It bears clarification that the Court‘s denial herein should only cover petitioners‘ plea to be furnished
with such schedule/list and report and not in any way deny them, or the general public, access to
official documents which are already existing and of public record. Subject to reasonable regulation
and absent any valid statutory prohibition, access to these documents should not be proscribed.
Thus, in Valmonte, while the Court denied the application for mandamus towards the preparation of
the list requested by petitioners therein, it nonetheless allowed access to the documents sought for
by the latter, subject, however, to the custodian‘s reasonable regulations,viz.: 259

In fine, petitioners are entitled to access to the documents evidencing loans granted by the GSIS,
subject to reasonable regulations that the latter may promulgate relating to the manner and hours of
examination, to the end that damage to or loss of the records may be avoided, that undue
interference with the duties of the custodian of the records may be prevented and that the right of
other persons entitled to inspect the records may be insured Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission,
supra at p. 538, quoting Subido v. Ozaeta, 80 Phil. 383, 387. The petition, as to the second and third
alternative acts sought to be done by petitioners, is meritorious.

However, the same cannot be said with regard to the first act sought by petitioners, i.e.,

"to furnish petitioners the list of the names of the Batasang Pambansa members belonging to the
UNIDO and PDP-Laban who were able to secure clean loans immediately before the February 7
election thru the intercession/marginal note of the then First Lady Imelda Marcos."

The Court, therefore, applies the same treatment here.

2. Petitioners’ Prayer to Include Matters in Congressional Deliberations.

Petitioners further seek that the Court "order the inclusion in budgetary deliberations with the
Congress of all presently, off-budget, lump sum, discretionary funds including but not limited to,
proceeds from the x x x Malampaya Fund, remittances from the PAGCOR and the PCSO or the
Executive‘s Social Funds." 260

Suffice it to state that the above-stated relief sought by petitioners covers a matter which is generally
left to the prerogative of the political branches of government. Hence, lest the Court itself overreach,
it must equally deny their prayer on this score.

3. Respondents’ Prayer to Lift TRO; Consequential Effects of Decision.

The final issue to be resolved stems from the interpretation accorded by the DBM to the concept of
released funds. In response to the Court‘s September 10, 2013 TRO that enjoined the release of the
remaining PDAF allocated for the year 2013, the DBM issued Circular Letter No. 2013-8 dated
September 27, 2013 (DBM Circular 2013-8) which pertinently reads as follows:

3.0 Nonetheless, PDAF projects funded under the FY 2013 GAA, where a Special Allotment Release
Order (SARO) has been issued by the DBM and such SARO has been obligated by the
implementing agencies prior to the issuance of the TRO, may continually be implemented and
disbursements thereto effected by the agencies concerned.

Based on the text of the foregoing, the DBM authorized the continued implementation and
disbursement of PDAF funds as long as they are: first, covered by a SARO; and, second, that said
SARO had been obligated by the implementing agency concerned prior to the issuance of the
Court‘s September 10, 2013 TRO.

Petitioners take issue with the foregoing circular, arguing that "the issuance of the SARO does not
yet involve the release of funds under the PDAF, as release is only triggered by the issuance of a
Notice of Cash Allocation [(NCA)]." As such, PDAF disbursements, even if covered by an obligated
261

SARO, should remain enjoined.

For their part, respondents espouse that the subject TRO only covers "unreleased and unobligated
allotments." They explain that once a SARO has been issued and obligated by the implementing
agency concerned, the PDAF funds covered by the same are already "beyond the reach of the TRO
because they cannot be considered as ‘remaining PDAF.‘" They conclude that this is a reasonable
interpretation of the TRO by the DBM. 262

The Court agrees with petitioners in part.

At the outset, it must be observed that the issue of whether or not the Court‘s September 10, 2013
TRO should be lifted is a matter rendered moot by the present Decision. The unconstitutionality of
the 2013 PDAF Article as declared herein has the consequential effect of converting the temporary
injunction into a permanent one. Hence, from the promulgation of this Decision, the release of the
remaining PDAF funds for 2013, among others, is now permanently enjoined.

The propriety of the DBM‘s interpretation of the concept of "release" must, nevertheless, be resolved
as it has a practical impact on the execution of the current Decision. In particular, the Court must
resolve the issue of whether or not PDAF funds covered by obligated SAROs, at the time this
Decision is promulgated, may still be disbursed following the DBM‘s interpretation in DBM Circular
2013-8.

On this score, the Court agrees with petitioners‘ posturing for the fundamental reason that funds
covered by an obligated SARO are yet to be "released" under legal contemplation. A SARO, as
defined by the DBM itself in its website, is "aspecific authority issued to identified agencies to incur
obligations not exceeding a given amount during a specified period for the purpose indicated. It shall
cover expenditures the release of which is subject to compliance with specific laws or regulations, or
is subject to separate approval or clearance by competent authority." 263

Based on this definition, it may be gleaned that a SARO only evinces the existence of an obligation
and not the directive to pay. Practically speaking, the SARO does not have the direct and immediate
effect of placing public funds beyond the control of the disbursing authority. In fact, a SARO may
even be withdrawn under certain circumstances which will prevent the actual release of funds. On
the other hand, the actual release of funds is brought about by the issuance of the NCA, which is
264

subsequent to the issuance of a SARO. As may be determined from the statements of the DBM
representative during the Oral Arguments: 265

Justice Bernabe: Is the notice of allocation issued simultaneously with the SARO?

xxxx

Atty. Ruiz: It comes after. The SARO, Your Honor, is only the go signal for the agencies to obligate or
to enter into commitments. The NCA, Your Honor, is already the go signal to the treasury for us to be
able to pay or to liquidate the amounts obligated in the SARO; so it comes after. x x x The NCA, Your
Honor, is the go signal for the MDS for the authorized government-disbursing banks to, therefore,
pay the payees depending on the projects or projects covered by the SARO and the NCA.

Justice Bernabe: Are there instances that SAROs are cancelled or revoked?

Atty. Ruiz: Your Honor, I would like to instead submit that there are instances that the SAROs issued
are withdrawn by the DBM.

Justice Bernabe: They are withdrawn?

Atty. Ruiz: Yes, Your Honor x x x. (Emphases and underscoring supplied)

Thus, unless an NCA has been issued, public funds should not be treated as funds which have been
"released." In this respect, therefore, the disbursement of 2013 PDAF funds which are only covered
by obligated SAROs, and without any corresponding NCAs issued, must, at the time of this
Decision’s promulgation, be enjoined and consequently reverted to the unappropriated surplus of the
general fund. Verily, in view of the declared unconstitutionality of the 2013 PDAF Article, the funds
appropriated pursuant thereto cannot be disbursed even though already obligated, else the Court
sanctions the dealing of funds coming from an unconstitutional source.

This same pronouncement must be equally applied to (a) the Malampaya Funds which have been
obligated but not released – meaning, those merely covered by a SARO – under the phrase "and for
such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President" pursuant to Section 8 of PD
910; and (b) funds sourced from the Presidential Social Fund under the phrase "to finance the
priority infrastructure development projects" pursuant to Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD
1993, which were altogether declared by the Court as unconstitutional. However, these funds should
not be reverted to the general fund as afore-stated but instead, respectively remain under the
Malampaya Funds and the Presidential Social Fund to be utilized for their corresponding special
purposes not otherwise declared as unconstitutional.

E. Consequential Effects of Decision.

As a final point, it must be stressed that the Court‘s pronouncement anent the unconstitutionality of
(a) the 2013 PDAF Article and its Special Provisions, (b) all other Congressional Pork Barrel
provisions similar thereto, and (c) the phrases (1) "and for such other purposes as may be hereafter
directed by the President" under Section 8 of PD 910, and (2) "to finance the priority infrastructure
development projects" under Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, must only be treated
as prospective in effect in view of the operative fact doctrine.

To explain, the operative fact doctrine exhorts the recognition that until the judiciary, in an
appropriate case, declares the invalidity of a certain legislative or executive act, such act is
presumed constitutional and thus, entitled to obedience and respect and should be properly
enforced and complied with. As explained in the recent case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.
San Roque Power Corporation, the doctrine merely "reflects awareness that precisely because the
266

judiciary is the governmental organ which has the final say on whether or not a legislative or
executive measure is valid, a period of time may have elapsed before it can exercise the power of
judicial review that may lead to a declaration of nullity. It would be to deprive the law of its quality of
fairness and justice then, if there be no recognition of what had transpired prior to such
adjudication." "In the language of an American Supreme Court decision: ‘The actual existence of a
267

statute, prior to such a determination of unconstitutionality, is an operative fact and may have
consequences which cannot justly be ignored.‘" 268

For these reasons, this Decision should be heretofore applied prospectively.

Conclusion

The Court renders this Decision to rectify an error which has persisted in the chronicles of our
history. In the final analysis, the Court must strike down the Pork Barrel System as unconstitutional in
view of the inherent defects in the rules within which it operates. To recount, insofar as it has allowed
legislators to wield, in varying gradations, non-oversight, post-enactment authority in vital areas of
budget execution, the system has violated the principle of separation of powers; insofar as it has
conferred unto legislators the power of appropriation by giving them personal, discretionary funds
from which they are able to fund specific projects which they themselves determine, it has similarly
violated the principle of non-delegability of legislative power ; insofar as it has created a system of
budgeting wherein items are not textualized into the appropriations bill, it has flouted the prescribed
procedure of presentment and, in the process, denied the President the power to veto items ; insofar
as it has diluted the effectiveness of congressional oversight by giving legislators a stake in the
affairs of budget execution, an aspect of governance which they may be called to monitor and
scrutinize, the system has equally impaired public accountability ; insofar as it has authorized
legislators, who are national officers, to intervene in affairs of purely local nature, despite the
existence of capable local institutions, it has likewise subverted genuine local autonomy ; and again,
insofar as it has conferred to the President the power to appropriate funds intended by law for
energy-related purposes only to other purposes he may deem fit as well as other public funds under
the broad classification of "priority infrastructure development projects," it has once more
transgressed the principle of non-delegability.

For as long as this nation adheres to the rule of law, any of the multifarious unconstitutional methods
and mechanisms the Court has herein pointed out should never again be adopted in any system of
governance, by any name or form, by any semblance or similarity, by any influence or effect.
Disconcerting as it is to think that a system so constitutionally unsound has monumentally endured,
the Court urges the people and its co-stewards in government to look forward with the optimism of
change and the awareness of the past. At a time of great civic unrest and vociferous public debate,
the Court fervently hopes that its Decision today, while it may not purge all the wrongs of society nor
bring back what has been lost, guides this nation to the path forged by the Constitution so that no
one may heretofore detract from its cause nor stray from its course. After all, this is the Court‘s
bounden duty and no other‘s.

WHEREFORE, the petitions are PARTLY GRANTED. In view of the constitutional violations
discussed in this Decision, the Court hereby declares as UNCONSTITUTIONAL: (a) the entire 2013
PDAF Article; (b) all legal provisions of past and present Congressional Pork Barrel Laws, such as
the previous PDAF and CDF Articles and the various Congressional Insertions, which authorize/d
legislators – whether individually or collectively organized into committees – to intervene, assume or
participate in any of the various post-enactment stages of the budget execution, such as but not
limited to the areas of project identification, modification and revision of project identification, fund
release and/or fund realignment, unrelated to the power of congressional oversight; (c) all legal
provisions of past and present Congressional Pork Barrel Laws, such as the previous PDAF and
CDF Articles and the various Congressional Insertions, which confer/red personal, lump-sum
allocations to legislators from which they are able to fund specific projects which they themselves
determine; (d) all informal practices of similar import and effect, which the Court similarly deems to
be acts of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (e) the phrases
(1) "and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President" under Section 8 of
Presidential Decree No. 910 and (2) "to finance the priority infrastructure development projects"
under Section 12 of Presidential Decree No. 1869, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1993, for
both failing the sufficient standard test in violation of the principle of non-delegability of legislative
power.

Accordingly, the Court‘s temporary injunction dated September 10, 2013 is hereby declared to be
PERMANENT. Thus, the disbursement/release of the remaining PDAF funds allocated for the year
2013, as well as for all previous years, and the funds sourced from (1) the Malampaya Funds under
the phrase "and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President" pursuant to
Section 8 of Presidential Decree No. 910, and (2) the Presidential Social Fund under the phrase "to
finance the priority infrastructure development projects" pursuant to Section 12 of Presidential
Decree No. 1869, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1993, which are, at the time this Decision
is promulgated, not covered by Notice of Cash Allocations (NCAs) but only by Special Allotment
Release Orders (SAROs), whether obligated or not, are hereby ENJOINED. The remaining PDAF
funds covered by this permanent injunction shall not be disbursed/released but instead reverted to
the unappropriated surplus of the general fund, while the funds under the Malampaya Funds and the
Presidential Social Fund shall remain therein to be utilized for their respective special purposes not
otherwise declared as unconstitutional.

On the other hand, due to improper recourse and lack of proper substantiation, the Court hereby
DENIES petitioners‘ prayer seeking that the Executive Secretary and/or the Department of Budget
and Management be ordered to provide the public and the Commission on Audit complete
lists/schedules or detailed reports related to the availments and utilization of the funds subject of
these cases. Petitioners‘ access to official documents already available and of public record which
are related to these funds must, however, not be prohibited but merely subjected to the custodian‘s
reasonable regulations or any valid statutory prohibition on the same. This denial is without prejudice
to a proper mandamus case which they or the Commission on Audit may choose to pursue through
a separate petition.
The Court also DENIES petitioners prayer to order the inclusion of the funds subject of these cases
in the budgetary deliberations of Congress as the same is a matter left to the prerogative of the
political branches of government.

Finally, the Court hereby DIRECTS all prosecutorial organs of the government to, within the bounds
of reasonable dispatch, investigate and accordingly prosecute all government officials and/or private
individuals for possible criminal offenses related to the irregular, improper and/or unlawful
disbursement/utilization of all funds under the Pork Barrel System.

This Decision is immediately executory but prospective in effect.

SO ORDERED.
 EN BANC

G.R. No. 203335 February 11, 2014

JOSE JESUS M. DISINI, JR., ROWENA S. DISINI, LIANNE IVY P. MEDINA, JANETTE TORAL
and ERNESTO SONIDO, JR., Petitioners,
vs.
THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE INFORMATION AND
COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY OFFICE, THE CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
POLICE and THE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Respondents.

x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 203299

LOUIS "BAROK" C. BIRAOGO, Petitioner,

vs.
NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION and PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, Respondents.

x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 203306

ALAB NG MAMAMAHAYAG (ALAM), HUKUMAN NG MAMAMAYAN MOVEMENT, INC., JERRY

S. YAP, BERTENI "TOTO" CAUSING, HERNANI Q. CUARE, PERCY LAPID, TRACY CABRERA,
RONALDO E. RENTA, CIRILO P. SABARRE, JR., DERVIN CASTRO, ET AL., Petitioners,
vs.
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, represented by President Benigno Simeon Aquino III, SENATE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, and HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Respondents.

x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 203359

SENATOR TEOFISTO DL GUINGONA III, Petitioner,

vs.
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, THE SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL POLICE, and DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, Respondents.

x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 203378

ALEXANDER ADONIS, ELLEN TORDESILLAS, MA. GISELA ORDENES-CASCOLAN, H. HARRY

L. ROQUE, JR., ROMEL R. BAGARES, and GILBERT T. ANDRES, Petitioners,
vs.
THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
POLICE, AND THE INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY OFFICE-
DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Respondents.

x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 203391

HON. RAYMOND V. PALATINO, HON. ANTONIO TINIO, VENCER MARI CRISOSTOMO OF

ANAKBAYAN, MA. KATHERINE ELONA OF THE PHILIPPINE COLLEGIAN, ISABELLE
THERESE BAGUISI OF THE NATIONAL UNION OF STUDENTS OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET
AL., Petitioners,
vs.
PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., in his capacity as Executive Secretary and alter-ego of President
Benigno Simeon Aquino III, LEILA DE LIMA in her capacity as Secretary of
Justice, Respondents.

x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 203407

BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN SECRETARY GENERAL RENATO M. REYES, JR.,

National Artist BIENVENIDO L. LUMBERA, Chairperson of Concerned Artists of the
Philippines, ELMER C. LABOG, Chairperson of Kilusang Mayo Uno, CRISTINA E. PALABAY,
Secretary General of Karapatan, FERDINAND R. GAITE, Chairperson of COURAGE, JOEL B.
MAGLUNSOD, Vice President of Anakpawis Party-List, LANA R. LINABAN, Secretary General
Gabriela Women's Party, ADOLFO ARES P. GUTIERREZ, and JULIUS GARCIA
MATIBAG, Petitioners,
vs.
BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, President of the Republic of the Philippines, PAQUITO N.
OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by SENATE
PRESIDENT JUAN PONCE ENRILE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, represented by
SPEAKER FELICIANO BELMONTE, JR., LEILA DE LIMA, Secretary of the Department of
Justice, LOUIS NAPOLEON C. CASAMBRE, Executive Director of the Information and
Communications Technology Office, NONNATUS CAESAR R. ROJAS, Director of the National
Bureau of Investigation, D/GEN. NICANOR A. BARTOLOME, Chief of the Philippine National
Police, MANUEL A. ROXAS II, Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local
Government, Respondents.

x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 203440

MELENCIO S. STA. MARIA, SEDFREY M. CANDELARIA, AMPARITA STA. MARIA, RAY PAOLO
J. SANTIAGO, GILBERT V. SEMBRANO, and RYAN JEREMIAH D. QUAN (all of the Ateneo
Human Rights Center),Petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLE PAQUITO OCHOA in his capacity as Executive Secretary, HONORABLE LEILA
DE LIMA in her capacity as Secretary of Justice, HONORABLE MANUEL ROXAS in his
capacity as Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government, The CHIEF of the
Philippine National Police, The DIRECTOR of the National Bureau of Investigation (all of the
Executive Department of Government), Respondents.

x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 203453

NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS OF THE PHILIPPINES (NUJP), PHILIPPINE PRESS

INSTITUTE (PPI), CENTER FOR MEDIA FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY, ROWENA
CARRANZA PARAAN, MELINDA QUINTOS-DE JESUS, JOSEPH ALWYN ALBURO, ARIEL
SEBELLINO AND THE PETITIONERS IN THE e-PETITION http://www.nujp.org/no-to-
ra10175/, Petitioners,
vs.
THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE SECRETARY OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT,
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, THE DIRECTOR OF THE
NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, THE CYBERCRIME INVESTIGATION AND
COORDINATING CENTER, AND ALL AGENCIES AND INSTRUMENTALITIES OF
GOVERNMENT AND ALL PERSONS ACTING UNDER THEIR INSTRUCTIONS, ORDERS,
DIRECTION IN RELATION TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF REPUBLIC ACT NO.
10175, Respondents.

x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 203454

PAUL CORNELIUS T. CASTILLO & RYAN D. ANDRES, Petitioners,

vs.
THE HON. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE THE HON. SECRETARY OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT,Respondents.

x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 203469

ANTHONY IAN M. CRUZ; MARCELO R. LANDICHO; BENJAMIN NOEL A. ESPINA; MARCK

RONALD C. RIMORIN; JULIUS D. ROCAS; OLIVER RICHARD V. ROBILLO; AARON ERICK A.
LOZADA; GERARD ADRIAN P. MAGNAYE; JOSE REGINALD A. RAMOS; MA. ROSARIO T.
JUAN; BRENDALYN P. RAMIREZ; MAUREEN A. HERMITANIO; KRISTINE JOY S.
REMENTILLA; MARICEL O. GRAY; JULIUS IVAN F. CABIGON; BENRALPH S. YU; CEBU
BLOGGERS SOCIETY, INC. PRESIDENT RUBEN B. LICERA, JR; and PINOY EXPAT/OFW
BLOG AWARDS, INC. COORDINATOR PEDRO E. RAHON; Petitioners,
vs.
HIS EXCELLENCY BENIGNO S. AQUINO III, in his capacity as President of the Republic of the
Philippines; SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, in
his capacity as Senate President; HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, represented by
FELICIANO R. BELMONTE, JR., in his capacity as Speaker of the House of Representatives;
HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., in his capacity as Executive Secretary; HON. LEILA M. DE
LIMA, in her capacity as Secretary of Justice; HON. LOUIS NAPOLEON C. CASAMBRE, in his
capacity as Executive Director, Information and Communications Technology Office; HON.
NONNATUS CAESAR R. ROJAS, in his capacity as Director, National Bureau of Investigation;
and P/DGEN. NICANOR A. BARTOLOME, in his capacity as Chief, Philippine National
Police, Respondents.

x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 203501

PHILIPPINE BAR ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner,

vs.
HIS EXCELLENCY BENIGNO S. AQUINO III, in his official capacity as President of the
Republic of the Philippines; HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., in his official capacity as
Executive Secretary; HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, in her official capacity as Secretary of Justice;
LOUIS NAPOLEON C. CASAMBRE, in his official capacity as Executive Director, Information
and Communications Technology Office; NONNATUS CAESAR R. ROJAS, in his official
capacity as Director of the National Bureau of Investigation; and DIRECTOR GENERAL
NICANOR A. BARTOLOME, in his official capacity as Chief of the Philippine National
Police,Respondents.

x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 203509

BAYAN MUNA REPRESENTATIVE NERI J. COLMENARES, Petitioner,

vs.
THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO OCHOA, JR., Respondent.

x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 203515

NATIONAL PRESS CLUB OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. represented by BENNY D. ANTIPORDA

in his capacity as President and in his personal capacity, Petitioner,
vs.
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, PRES. BENIGNO SIMEON AQUINO III, DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
POLICE, NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND
MANAGEMENT AND ALL OTHER GOVERNMENT INSTRUMENTALITIES WHO HAVE HANDS IN
THE PASSAGE AND/OR IMPLEMENTATION OF REPUBLIC ACT 10175, Respondents.

x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 203518

PHILIPPINE INTERNET FREEDOM ALLIANCE, composed of DAKILA-PHILIPPINE

COLLECTIVE FOR MODERN HEROISM, represented by Leni Velasco, PARTIDO LAKAS NG
MASA, represented by Cesar S. Melencio, FRANCIS EUSTON R. ACERO, MARLON ANTHONY
ROMASANTA TONSON, TEODORO A. CASIÑO, NOEMI LARDIZABAL-DADO, IMELDA
ORALES, JAMES MATTHEW B. MIRAFLOR, JUAN G.M. RAGRAGIO, MARIA FATIMA A.
VILLENA, MEDARDO M. MANRIQUE, JR., LAUREN DADO, MARCO VITTORIA TOBIAS
SUMAYAO, IRENE CHIA, ERASTUS NOEL T. DELIZO, CRISTINA SARAH E. OSORIO, ROMEO
FACTOLERIN, NAOMI L. TUPAS, KENNETH KENG, ANA ALEXANDRA C. CASTRO, Petitioners,
vs.
THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, THE SECRETARY OF
INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE SECRETARY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY OFFICE, THE DIRECTOR
OF THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, THE CHIEF, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
POLICE, THE HEAD OF THE DOJ OFFICE OF CYBERCRIME, and THE OTHER MEMBERS OF
THE CYBERCRIME INVESTIGATION AND COORDINATING CENTER, Respondents.

DECISION

ABAD, J.:

These consolidated petitions seek to declare several provisions of Republic Act (R.A.) 10175, the
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, unconstitutional and void.

The Facts and the Case

The cybercrime law aims to regulate access to and use of the cyberspace. Using his laptop or
computer, a person can connect to the internet, a system that links him to other computers and
enable him, among other things, to:

1. Access virtual libraries and encyclopedias for all kinds of information that he needs for
research, study, amusement, upliftment, or pure curiosity;

2. Post billboard-like notices or messages, including pictures and videos, for the general
public or for special audiences like associates, classmates, or friends and read postings from
them;

3. Advertise and promote goods or services and make purchases and payments;

4. Inquire and do business with institutional entities like government agencies, banks, stock
exchanges, trade houses, credit card companies, public utilities, hospitals, and schools; and

5. Communicate in writing or by voice with any person through his e-mail address or
telephone.

This is cyberspace, a system that accommodates millions and billions of simultaneous and ongoing
individual accesses to and uses of the internet. The cyberspace is a boon to the need of the current
generation for greater information and facility of communication. But all is not well with the system
since it could not filter out a number of persons of ill will who would want to use cyberspace
technology for mischiefs and crimes. One of them can, for instance, avail himself of the system to
unjustly ruin the reputation of another or bully the latter by posting defamatory statements against
him that people can read.

And because linking with the internet opens up a user to communications from others, the ill-
motivated can use the cyberspace for committing theft by hacking into or surreptitiously accessing
his bank account or credit card or defrauding him through false representations. The wicked can use
the cyberspace, too, for illicit trafficking in sex or for exposing to pornography guileless children who
have access to the internet. For this reason, the government has a legitimate right to regulate the
use of cyberspace and contain and punish wrongdoings.
Notably, there are also those who would want, like vandals, to wreak or cause havoc to the computer
systems and networks of indispensable or highly useful institutions as well as to the laptop or
computer programs and memories of innocent individuals. They accomplish this by sending
electronic viruses or virtual dynamites that destroy those computer systems, networks, programs,
and memories. The government certainly has the duty and the right to prevent these tomfooleries
from happening and punish their perpetrators, hence the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

But petitioners claim that the means adopted by the cybercrime law for regulating undesirable
cyberspace activities violate certain of their constitutional rights. The government of course asserts
that the law merely seeks to reasonably put order into cyberspace activities, punish wrongdoings,
and prevent hurtful attacks on the system.

Pending hearing and adjudication of the issues presented in these cases, on February 5, 2013 the
Court extended the original 120-day temporary restraining order (TRO) that it earlier issued on
October 9, 2012, enjoining respondent government agencies from implementing the cybercrime law
until further orders.

The Issues Presented

Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of the following provisions of the cybercrime law that
regard certain acts as crimes and impose penalties for their commission as well as provisions that
would enable the government to track down and penalize violators. These provisions are:

a. Section 4(a)(1) on Illegal Access;

b. Section 4(a)(3) on Data Interference;

c. Section 4(a)(6) on Cyber-squatting;

d. Section 4(b)(3) on Identity Theft;

e. Section 4(c)(1) on Cybersex;

f. Section 4(c)(2) on Child Pornography;

g. Section 4(c)(3) on Unsolicited Commercial Communications;

h. Section 4(c)(4) on Libel;

i. Section 5 on Aiding or Abetting and Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrimes;

j. Section 6 on the Penalty of One Degree Higher;

k. Section 7 on the Prosecution under both the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and R.A. 10175;

l. Section 8 on Penalties;

m. Section 12 on Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data;

n. Section 13 on Preservation of Computer Data;

 o. Section 14 on Disclosure of Computer Data;

p. Section 15 on Search, Seizure and Examination of Computer Data;

q. Section 17 on Destruction of Computer Data;

r. Section 19 on Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data;

s. Section 20 on Obstruction of Justice;

t. Section 24 on Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC); and

u. Section 26(a) on CICC’s Powers and Functions.

Some petitioners also raise the constitutionality of related Articles 353, 354, 361, and 362 of the RPC
on the crime of libel.

The Rulings of the Court

Section 4(a)(1)

Section 4(a)(1) provides:

Section 4. Cybercrime Offenses. – The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime
punishable under this Act:

(a) Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and systems:

(1) Illegal Access. – The access to the whole or any part of a computer system without right.

Petitioners contend that Section 4(a)(1) fails to meet the strict scrutiny standard required of laws that
interfere with the fundamental rights of the people and should thus be struck down.

The Court has in a way found the strict scrutiny standard, an American constitutional
construct, useful in determining the constitutionality of laws that tend to target a class of things or
1

persons. According to this standard, a legislative classification that impermissibly interferes with the
exercise of fundamental right or operates to the peculiar class disadvantage of a suspect class is
presumed unconstitutional. The burden is on the government to prove that the classification is
necessary to achieve a compelling state interest and that it is the least restrictive means to protect
such interest. Later, the strict scrutiny standard was used to assess the validity of laws dealing with
2

the regulation of speech, gender, or race as well as other fundamental rights, as expansion from its
earlier applications to equal protection.
3

In the cases before it, the Court finds nothing in Section 4(a)(1) that calls for the application of the
strict scrutiny standard since no fundamental freedom, like speech, is involved in punishing what is
essentially a condemnable act – accessing the computer system of another without right. It is a
universally condemned conduct. 4

Petitioners of course fear that this section will jeopardize the work of ethical hackers, professionals
who employ tools and techniques used by criminal hackers but would neither damage the target
systems nor steal information. Ethical hackers evaluate the target system’s security and report back
to the owners the vulnerabilities they found in it and give instructions for how these can be remedied.
Ethical hackers are the equivalent of independent auditors who come into an organization to verify
its bookkeeping records. 5

Besides, a client’s engagement of an ethical hacker requires an agreement between them as to the
extent of the search, the methods to be used, and the systems to be tested. This is referred to as the
"get out of jail free card." Since the ethical hacker does his job with prior permission from the client,
6

such permission would insulate him from the coverage of Section 4(a)(1).

Section 4(a)(3) of the Cybercrime Law

Section 4(a)(3) provides:

Section 4. Cybercrime Offenses. – The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime
punishable under this Act:

(a) Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and systems:

xxxx

(3) Data Interference. – The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of
computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the
introduction or transmission of viruses.

Petitioners claim that Section 4(a)(3) suffers from overbreadth in that, while it seeks to discourage
data interference, it intrudes into the area of protected speech and expression, creating a chilling
and deterrent effect on these guaranteed freedoms.

Under the overbreadth doctrine, a proper governmental purpose, constitutionally subject to state
regulation, may not be achieved by means that unnecessarily sweep its subject broadly, thereby
invading the area of protected freedoms. But Section 4(a)(3) does not encroach on these freedoms
7

at all. It simply punishes what essentially is a form of vandalism, the act of willfully destroying
8

without right the things that belong to others, in this case their computer data, electronic document,
or electronic data message. Such act has no connection to guaranteed freedoms. There is no
freedom to destroy other people’s computer systems and private documents.

All penal laws, like the cybercrime law, have of course an inherent chilling effect, an in terrorem
effect or the fear of possible prosecution that hangs on the heads of citizens who are minded to step
9

beyond the boundaries of what is proper. But to prevent the State from legislating criminal laws
because they instill such kind of fear is to render the state powerless in addressing and penalizing
socially harmful conduct. Here, the chilling effect that results in paralysis is an illusion since Section
10

4(a)(3) clearly describes the evil that it seeks to punish and creates no tendency to intimidate the
free exercise of one’s constitutional rights.

Besides, the overbreadth challenge places on petitioners the heavy burden of proving that under no
set of circumstances will Section 4(a)(3) be valid. Petitioner has failed to discharge this burden.
11

Section 4(a)(6) of the Cybercrime Law

Section 4(a)(6) provides:

Section 4. Cybercrime Offenses. – The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime
punishable under this Act:

(a) Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and systems:

xxxx

(6) Cyber-squatting. – The acquisition of domain name over the internet in bad faith to profit,
mislead, destroy the reputation, and deprive others from registering the same, if such a domain
name is:

(i) Similar, identical, or confusingly similar to an existing trademark registered with the
appropriate government agency at the time of the domain name registration;

(ii) Identical or in any way similar with the name of a person other than the registrant, in case
of a personal name; and

(iii) Acquired without right or with intellectual property interests in it.

Petitioners claim that Section 4(a)(6) or cyber-squatting violates the equal protection clause in that,
12

not being narrowly tailored, it will cause a user using his real name to suffer the same fate as those
who use aliases or take the name of another in satire, parody, or any other literary device. For
example, supposing there exists a well known billionaire-philanthropist named "Julio Gandolfo," the
law would punish for cyber-squatting both the person who registers such name because he claims it
to be his pseudo-name and another who registers the name because it happens to be his real name.
Petitioners claim that, considering the substantial distinction between the two, the law should
recognize the difference.

But there is no real difference whether he uses "Julio Gandolfo" which happens to be his real name
or use it as a pseudo-name for it is the evil purpose for which he uses the name that the law
condemns. The law is reasonable in penalizing him for acquiring the domain name in bad faith to
profit, mislead, destroy reputation, or deprive others who are not ill-motivated of the rightful
opportunity of registering the same. The challenge to the constitutionality of Section 4(a)(6) on
ground of denial of equal protection is baseless.

Section 4(b)(3) of the Cybercrime Law

Section 4(b)(3) provides:

Section 4. Cybercrime Offenses. – The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime
punishable under this Act:

xxxx

b) Computer-related Offenses:

xxxx

(3) Computer-related Identity Theft. – The intentional acquisition, use, misuse, transfer, possession,
alteration, or deletion of identifying information belonging to another, whether natural or juridical,
without right: Provided: that if no damage has yet been caused, the penalty imposable shall be one
(1) degree lower.

Petitioners claim that Section 4(b)(3) violates the constitutional rights to due process and to privacy
and correspondence, and transgresses the freedom of the press.

The right to privacy, or the right to be let alone, was institutionalized in the 1987 Constitution as a
facet of the right protected by the guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures. But the
13

Court acknowledged its existence as early as 1968 in Morfe v. Mutuc, it ruled that the right to
14

privacy exists independently of its identification with liberty; it is in itself fully deserving of
constitutional protection.

Relevant to any discussion of the right to privacy is the concept known as the "Zones of Privacy."
The Court explained in "In the Matter of the Petition for Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus of Sabio
v. Senator Gordon" the relevance of these zones to the right to privacy:
15

Zones of privacy are recognized and protected in our laws. Within these zones, any form of intrusion
is impermissible unless excused by law and in accordance with customary legal process. The
meticulous regard we accord to these zones arises not only from our conviction that the right to
privacy is a "constitutional right" and "the right most valued by civilized men," but also from our
adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which mandates that, "no one shall be
subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy" and "everyone has the right to the protection of
the law against such interference or attacks."

Two constitutional guarantees create these zones of privacy: (a) the right against unreasonable
searches and seizures, which is the basis of the right to be let alone, and (b) the right to privacy of
16

communication and correspondence. In assessing the challenge that the State has impermissibly
17

intruded into these zones of privacy, a court must determine whether a person has exhibited a
reasonable expectation of privacy and, if so, whether that expectation has been violated by
unreasonable government intrusion. 18

The usual identifying information regarding a person includes his name, his citizenship, his
residence address, his contact number, his place and date of birth, the name of his spouse if any, his
occupation, and similar data. The law punishes those who acquire or use such identifying
19

information without right, implicitly to cause damage. Petitioners simply fail to show how government
effort to curb computer-related identity theft violates the right to privacy and correspondence as well
as the right to due process of law.

Also, the charge of invalidity of this section based on the overbreadth doctrine will not hold water
since the specific conducts proscribed do not intrude into guaranteed freedoms like speech. Clearly,
what this section regulates are specific actions: the acquisition, use, misuse or deletion of personal
identifying data of another. There is no fundamental right to acquire another’s personal data.

Further, petitioners fear that Section 4(b)(3) violates the freedom of the press in that journalists
would be hindered from accessing the unrestricted user account of a person in the news to secure
information about him that could be published. But this is not the essence of identity theft that the
law seeks to prohibit and punish. Evidently, the theft of identity information must be intended for an
illegitimate purpose. Moreover, acquiring and disseminating information made public by the user
himself cannot be regarded as a form of theft.

The Court has defined intent to gain as an internal act which can be established through the overt
acts of the offender, and it may be presumed from the furtive taking of useful property pertaining to
another, unless special circumstances reveal a different intent on the part of the perpetrator. As20

such, the press, whether in quest of news reporting or social investigation, has nothing to fear since
a special circumstance is present to negate intent to gain which is required by this Section.

Section 4(c)(1) of the Cybercrime Law

Section 4(c)(1) provides:

Sec. 4. Cybercrime Offenses.– The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable
under this Act:

xxxx

(c) Content-related Offenses:

(1) Cybersex.– The willful engagement, maintenance, control, or operation, directly or indirectly, of
any lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity, with the aid of a computer system, for
favor or consideration.

Petitioners claim that the above violates the freedom of expression clause of the Constitution. They 21

express fear that private communications of sexual character between husband and wife or
consenting adults, which are not regarded as crimes under the penal code, would now be regarded
as crimes when done "for favor" in cyberspace. In common usage, the term "favor" includes
"gracious kindness," "a special privilege or right granted or conceded," or "a token of love (as a
ribbon) usually worn conspicuously." This meaning given to the term "favor" embraces socially
22

tolerated trysts. The law as written would invite law enforcement agencies into the bedrooms of
married couples or consenting individuals.

But the deliberations of the Bicameral Committee of Congress on this section of the Cybercrime
Prevention Act give a proper perspective on the issue. These deliberations show a lack of intent to
penalize a "private showing x x x between and among two private persons x x x although that may
be a form of obscenity to some." The understanding of those who drew up the cybercrime law is
23

that the element of "engaging in a business" is necessary to constitute the illegal cybersex. The Act
24

actually seeks to punish cyber prostitution, white slave trade, and pornography for favor and
consideration. This includes interactive prostitution and pornography, i.e., by webcam. 25

The subject of Section 4(c)(1)—lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity—is not
novel. Article 201 of the RPC punishes "obscene publications and exhibitions and indecent shows."
The Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 penalizes those who "maintain or hire a person to
engage in prostitution or pornography." The law defines prostitution as any act, transaction,
26

scheme, or design involving the use of a person by another, for sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct in exchange for money, profit, or any other consideration. 27

The case of Nogales v. People28 shows the extent to which the State can regulate materials that
serve no other purpose than satisfy the market for violence, lust, or pornography. The Court
29

weighed the property rights of individuals against the public welfare. Private property, if containing
pornographic materials, may be forfeited and destroyed. Likewise, engaging in sexual acts privately
through internet connection, perceived by some as a right, has to be balanced with the mandate of
the State to eradicate white slavery and the exploitation of women.
In any event, consenting adults are protected by the wealth of jurisprudence delineating the bounds
of obscenity. The Court will not declare Section 4(c)(1) unconstitutional where it stands a
30

construction that makes it apply only to persons engaged in the business of maintaining, controlling,
or operating, directly or indirectly, the lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity with the
aid of a computer system as Congress has intended.

Section 4(c)(2) of the Cybercrime Law

Section 4(c)(2) provides:

Sec. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. – The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable
under this Act:

xxxx

(c) Content-related Offenses:

xxxx

(2) Child Pornography. — The unlawful or prohibited acts defined and punishable by Republic Act
No. 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009, committed through a computer system:
Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be (1) one degree higher than that provided for in
Republic Act No. 9775.

It seems that the above merely expands the scope of the Anti-Child Pornography Act of
2009 (ACPA) to cover identical activities in cyberspace. In theory, nothing prevents the government
31

from invoking the ACPA when prosecuting persons who commit child pornography using a computer
system. Actually, ACPA’s definition of child pornography already embraces the use of "electronic,
mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic or any other means." Notably, no one has questioned this
ACPA provision.

Of course, the law makes the penalty higher by one degree when the crime is committed in
cyberspace. But no one can complain since the intensity or duration of penalty is a legislative
prerogative and there is rational basis for such higher penalty. The potential for uncontrolled
32

proliferation of a particular piece of child pornography when uploaded in the cyberspace is

incalculable.

Petitioners point out that the provision of ACPA that makes it unlawful for any person to "produce,
direct, manufacture or create any form of child pornography" clearly relates to the prosecution of
33

persons who aid and abet the core offenses that ACPA seeks to punish. Petitioners are wary that a
34

person who merely doodles on paper and imagines a sexual abuse of a 16-year-old is not criminally
liable for producing child pornography but one who formulates the idea on his laptop would be.
Further, if the author bounces off his ideas on Twitter, anyone who replies to the tweet could be
considered aiding and abetting a cybercrime.

The question of aiding and abetting the offense by simply commenting on it will be discussed
elsewhere below. For now the Court must hold that the constitutionality of Section 4(c)(2) is not
successfully challenged.

Section 4(c)(3) of the Cybercrime Law

Section 4(c)(3) provides:

Sec. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. – The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable
under this Act:

xxxx

(c) Content-related Offenses:

xxxx

(3) Unsolicited Commercial Communications. – The transmission of commercial electronic

communication with the use of computer system which seeks to advertise, sell, or offer for sale
products and services are prohibited unless:

(i) There is prior affirmative consent from the recipient; or

(ii) The primary intent of the communication is for service and/or administrative
announcements from the sender to its existing users, subscribers or customers; or

(iii) The following conditions are present:

(aa) The commercial electronic communication contains a simple, valid, and reliable
way for the recipient to reject receipt of further commercial electronic messages (opt-
out) from the same source;

(bb) The commercial electronic communication does not purposely disguise the
source of the electronic message; and

(cc) The commercial electronic communication does not purposely include

misleading information in any part of the message in order to induce the recipients to
read the message.

The above penalizes the transmission of unsolicited commercial communications, also known as
"spam." The term "spam" surfaced in early internet chat rooms and interactive fantasy games. One
who repeats the same sentence or comment was said to be making a "spam." The term referred to a
Monty Python’s Flying Circus scene in which actors would keep saying "Spam, Spam, Spam, and
Spam" when reading options from a menu. 35

The Government, represented by the Solicitor General, points out that unsolicited commercial
communications or spams are a nuisance that wastes the storage and network capacities of internet
service providers, reduces the efficiency of commerce and technology, and interferes with the
owner’s peaceful enjoyment of his property. Transmitting spams amounts to trespass to one’s
privacy since the person sending out spams enters the recipient’s domain without prior permission.
The OSG contends that commercial speech enjoys less protection in law.

But, firstly, the government presents no basis for holding that unsolicited electronic ads reduce the
"efficiency of computers." Secondly, people, before the arrival of the age of computers, have already
been receiving such unsolicited ads by mail. These have never been outlawed as nuisance since
people might have interest in such ads. What matters is that the recipient has the option of not
opening or reading these mail ads. That is true with spams. Their recipients always have the option
to delete or not to read them.

To prohibit the transmission of unsolicited ads would deny a person the right to read his emails, even
unsolicited commercial ads addressed to him. Commercial speech is a separate category of speech
which is not accorded the same level of protection as that given to other constitutionally guaranteed
forms of expression but is nonetheless entitled to protection. The State cannot rob him of this right
36

without violating the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression. Unsolicited advertisements

are legitimate forms of expression.

Articles 353, 354, and 355 of the Penal Code

Section 4(c)(4) of the Cyber Crime Law

Petitioners dispute the constitutionality of both the penal code provisions on libel as well as Section
4(c)(4) of the Cybercrime Prevention Act on cyberlibel.

The RPC provisions on libel read:

Art. 353. Definition of libel. — A libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or
defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause
the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one
who is dead.

Art. 354. Requirement for publicity. — Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious,
even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown, except in the
following cases:

1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal,
moral or social duty; and

2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any
judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any
statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by
public officers in the exercise of their functions.

Art. 355. Libel means by writings or similar means. — A libel committed by means of writing, printing,
lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition,
or any similar means, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods
or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action which may be
brought by the offended party.

The libel provision of the cybercrime law, on the other hand, merely incorporates to form part of it the
provisions of the RPC on libel. Thus Section 4(c)(4) reads:

Sec. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. — The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable
under this Act:

xxxx

(c) Content-related Offenses:

 xxxx

(4) Libel. — The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be
devised in the future.

Petitioners lament that libel provisions of the penal code and, in effect, the libel provisions of the
37

cybercrime law carry with them the requirement of "presumed malice" even when the latest
jurisprudence already replaces it with the higher standard of "actual malice" as a basis for
conviction. Petitioners argue that inferring "presumed malice" from the accused’s defamatory
38

statement by virtue of Article 354 of the penal code infringes on his constitutionally guaranteed
freedom of expression.

Petitioners would go further. They contend that the laws on libel should be stricken down as
unconstitutional for otherwise good jurisprudence requiring "actual malice" could easily be
overturned as the Court has done in Fermin v. People even where the offended parties happened to
39

be public figures.

The elements of libel are: (a) the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another; (b)
publication of the charge; (c) identity of the person defamed; and (d) existence of malice. 40

There is "actual malice" or malice in fact when the offender makes the defamatory statement with
41

the knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. The reckless
42

disregard standard used here requires a high degree of awareness of probable falsity. There must
be sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the accused in fact entertained serious doubts as
to the truth of the statement he published. Gross or even extreme negligence is not sufficient to
establish actual malice.43

The prosecution bears the burden of proving the presence of actual malice in instances where such
element is required to establish guilt. The defense of absence of actual malice, even when the
statement turns out to be false, is available where the offended party is a public official or a public
figure, as in the cases of Vasquez (a barangay official) and Borjal (the Executive Director, First
National Conference on Land Transportation). Since the penal code and implicitly, the cybercrime
law, mainly target libel against private persons, the Court recognizes that these laws imply a stricter
standard of "malice" to convict the author of a defamatory statement where the offended party is a
public figure. Society’s interest and the maintenance of good government demand a full discussion
of public affairs.
44

Parenthetically, the Court cannot accept the proposition that its ruling in Fermin disregarded the
higher standard of actual malice or malice in fact when it found Cristinelli Fermin guilty of committing
libel against complainants who were public figures. Actually, the Court found the presence of malice
in fact in that case. Thus:

It can be gleaned from her testimony that petitioner had the motive to make defamatory imputations
against complainants. Thus, petitioner cannot, by simply making a general denial, convince us that
there was no malice on her part. Verily, not only was there malice in law, the article being malicious
in itself, but there was also malice in fact, as there was motive to talk ill against complainants during
the electoral campaign. (Emphasis ours)

Indeed, the Court took into account the relatively wide leeway given to utterances against public
figures in the above case, cinema and television personalities, when it modified the penalty of
imprisonment to just a fine of ₱6,000.00.
But, where the offended party is a private individual, the prosecution need not prove the presence of
malice. The law explicitly presumes its existence (malice in law) from the defamatory character of the
assailed statement. For his defense, the accused must show that he has a justifiable reason for the
45

defamatory statement even if it was in fact true.46

Petitioners peddle the view that both the penal code and the Cybercrime Prevention Act violate the
country’s obligations under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). They
point out that in Adonis v. Republic of the Philippines, the United Nations Human Rights Committee
47

(UNHRC) cited its General Comment 34 to the effect that penal defamation laws should include the
defense of truth.

But General Comment 34 does not say that the truth of the defamatory statement should constitute
an all-encompassing defense. As it happens, Article 361 recognizes truth as a defense but under the
condition that the accused has been prompted in making the statement by good motives and for
justifiable ends. Thus:

Art. 361. Proof of the truth. — In every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may be given in
evidence to the court and if it appears that the matter charged as libelous is true, and, moreover, that
it was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the defendants shall be acquitted.

Proof of the truth of an imputation of an act or omission not constituting a crime shall not be
admitted, unless the imputation shall have been made against Government employees with respect
to facts related to the discharge of their official duties.

In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation made by him, he shall be acquitted.

Besides, the UNHRC did not actually enjoin the Philippines, as petitioners urge, to decriminalize
libel. It simply suggested that defamation laws be crafted with care to ensure that they do not stifle
freedom of expression. Indeed, the ICCPR states that although everyone should enjoy freedom of
48

expression, its exercise carries with it special duties and responsibilities. Free speech is not
absolute. It is subject to certain restrictions, as may be necessary and as may be provided by law. 49

The Court agrees with the Solicitor General that libel is not a constitutionally protected speech and
that the government has an obligation to protect private individuals from defamation. Indeed,
cyberlibel is actually not a new crime since Article 353, in relation to Article 355 of the penal code,
already punishes it. In effect, Section 4(c)(4) above merely affirms that online defamation constitutes
"similar means" for committing libel.

But the Court’s acquiescence goes only insofar as the cybercrime law penalizes the author of the
libelous statement or article. Cyberlibel brings with it certain intricacies, unheard of when the penal
code provisions on libel were enacted. The culture associated with internet media is distinct from that
of print.

The internet is characterized as encouraging a freewheeling, anything-goes writing style. In a

50

sense, they are a world apart in terms of quickness of the reader’s reaction to defamatory
statements posted in cyberspace, facilitated by one-click reply options offered by the networking site
as well as by the speed with which such reactions are disseminated down the line to other internet
users. Whether these reactions to defamatory statement posted on the internet constitute aiding and
abetting libel, acts that Section 5 of the cybercrime law punishes, is another matter that the Court will
deal with next in relation to Section 5 of the law.
Section 5 of the Cybercrime Law

Section 5 provides:

Sec. 5. Other Offenses. — The following acts shall also constitute an offense:

(a) Aiding or Abetting in the Commission of Cybercrime. – Any person who willfully abets or
aids in the commission of any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held liable.

(b) Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrime. — Any person who willfully attempts to commit
any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held liable.

Petitioners assail the constitutionality of Section 5 that renders criminally liable any person who
willfully abets or aids in the commission or attempts to commit any of the offenses enumerated as
cybercrimes. It suffers from overbreadth, creating a chilling and deterrent effect on protected
expression.

The Solicitor General contends, however, that the current body of jurisprudence and laws on aiding
and abetting sufficiently protects the freedom of expression of "netizens," the multitude that avail
themselves of the services of the internet. He points out that existing laws and jurisprudence
sufficiently delineate the meaning of "aiding or abetting" a crime as to protect the innocent. The
Solicitor General argues that plain, ordinary, and common usage is at times sufficient to guide law
enforcement agencies in enforcing the law. The legislature is not required to define every single
51

word contained in the laws they craft.

Aiding or abetting has of course well-defined meaning and application in existing laws. When a
person aids or abets another in destroying a forest, smuggling merchandise into the country, or
52 53

interfering in the peaceful picketing of laborers, his action is essentially physical and so is
54

susceptible to easy assessment as criminal in character. These forms of aiding or abetting lend
themselves to the tests of common sense and human experience.

But, when it comes to certain cybercrimes, the waters are muddier and the line of sight is somewhat
blurred. The idea of "aiding or abetting" wrongdoings online threatens the heretofore popular and
unchallenged dogmas of cyberspace use.

According to the 2011 Southeast Asia Digital Consumer Report, 33% of Filipinos have accessed the
internet within a year, translating to about 31 million users. Based on a recent survey, the
55

Philippines ranks 6th in the top 10 most engaged countries for social networking. Social networking
56

sites build social relations among people who, for example, share interests, activities, backgrounds,
or real-life connections.
57

Two of the most popular of these sites are Facebook and Twitter. As of late 2012, 1.2 billion people
with shared interests use Facebook to get in touch. Users register at this site, create a personal
58

profile or an open book of who they are, add other users as friends, and exchange messages,
including automatic notifications when they update their profile. A user can post a statement, a
59

photo, or a video on Facebook, which can be made visible to anyone, depending on the user’s
privacy settings.

If the post is made available to the public, meaning to everyone and not only to his friends, anyone
on Facebook can react to the posting, clicking any of several buttons of preferences on the
program’s screen such as "Like," "Comment," or "Share." "Like" signifies that the reader likes the
posting while "Comment" enables him to post online his feelings or views about the same, such as
"This is great!" When a Facebook user "Shares" a posting, the original "posting" will appear on his
own Facebook profile, consequently making it visible to his down-line Facebook Friends.

Twitter, on the other hand, is an internet social networking and microblogging service that enables its
users to send and read short text-based messages of up to 140 characters. These are known as
"Tweets." Microblogging is the practice of posting small pieces of digital content—which could be in
the form of text, pictures, links, short videos, or other media—on the internet. Instead of friends, a
Twitter user has "Followers," those who subscribe to this particular user’s posts, enabling them to
read the same, and "Following," those whom this particular user is subscribed to, enabling him to
read their posts. Like Facebook, a Twitter user can make his tweets available only to his Followers,
or to the general public. If a post is available to the public, any Twitter user can "Retweet" a given
posting. Retweeting is just reposting or republishing another person’s tweet without the need of
copying and pasting it.

In the cyberworld, there are many actors: a) the blogger who originates the assailed statement; b)
the blog service provider like Yahoo; c) the internet service provider like PLDT, Smart, Globe, or Sun;
d) the internet café that may have provided the computer used for posting the blog; e) the person
who makes a favorable comment on the blog; and f) the person who posts a link to the blog
site. Now, suppose Maria (a blogger) maintains a blog on WordPress.com (blog service provider).
60

She needs the internet to access her blog so she subscribes to Sun Broadband (Internet Service
Provider).

One day, Maria posts on her internet account the statement that a certain married public official has
an illicit affair with a movie star. Linda, one of Maria’s friends who sees this post, comments online,
"Yes, this is so true! They are so immoral." Maria’s original post is then multiplied by her friends and
the latter’s friends, and down the line to friends of friends almost ad infinitum. Nena, who is a
stranger to both Maria and Linda, comes across this blog, finds it interesting and so shares the link
to this apparently defamatory blog on her Twitter account. Nena’s "Followers" then "Retweet" the link
to that blog site.

Pamela, a Twitter user, stumbles upon a random person’s "Retweet" of Nena’s original tweet and
posts this on her Facebook account. Immediately, Pamela’s Facebook Friends start Liking and
making Comments on the assailed posting. A lot of them even press the Share button, resulting in
the further spread of the original posting into tens, hundreds, thousands, and greater postings.

The question is: are online postings such as "Liking" an openly defamatory statement, "Commenting"
on it, or "Sharing" it with others, to be regarded as "aiding or abetting?" In libel in the physical world,
if Nestor places on the office bulletin board a small poster that says, "Armand is a thief!," he could
certainly be charged with libel. If Roger, seeing the poster, writes on it, "I like this!," that could not be
libel since he did not author the poster. If Arthur, passing by and noticing the poster, writes on it,
"Correct!," would that be libel? No, for he merely expresses agreement with the statement on the
poster. He still is not its author. Besides, it is not clear if aiding or abetting libel in the physical world
is a crime.

But suppose Nestor posts the blog, "Armand is a thief!" on a social networking site. Would a reader
and his Friends or Followers, availing themselves of any of the "Like," "Comment," and "Share"
reactions, be guilty of aiding or abetting libel? And, in the complex world of cyberspace expressions
of thoughts, when will one be liable for aiding or abetting cybercrimes? Where is the venue of the
crime?
Except for the original author of the assailed statement, the rest (those who pressed Like, Comment
and Share) are essentially knee-jerk sentiments of readers who may think little or haphazardly of
their response to the original posting. Will they be liable for aiding or abetting? And, considering the
inherent impossibility of joining hundreds or thousands of responding "Friends" or "Followers" in the
criminal charge to be filed in court, who will make a choice as to who should go to jail for the
outbreak of the challenged posting?

The old parameters for enforcing the traditional form of libel would be a square peg in a round hole
when applied to cyberspace libel. Unless the legislature crafts a cyber libel law that takes into
account its unique circumstances and culture, such law will tend to create a chilling effect on the
millions that use this new medium of communication in violation of their constitutionally-guaranteed
right to freedom of expression.

The United States Supreme Court faced the same issue in Reno v. American Civil Liberties
Union, a case involving the constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. The law
61

prohibited (1) the knowing transmission, by means of a telecommunications device, of

"obscene or indecent" communications to any recipient under 18 years of age; and (2) the knowing
use of an interactive computer service to send to a specific person or persons under 18 years of age
or to display in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age communications that, in
context, depict or describe, in terms "patently offensive" as measured by contemporary community
standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs.

Those who challenged the Act claim that the law violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of
freedom of speech for being overbroad. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed and ruled:

The vagueness of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), 47 U.S.C.S. §223, is a matter of
special concern for two reasons. First, the CDA is a content-based regulation of speech. The
vagueness of such a regulation raises special U.S. Const. amend. I concerns because of its obvious
chilling effect on free speech. Second, the CDA is a criminal statute. In addition to the opprobrium
and stigma of a criminal conviction, the CDA threatens violators with penalties including up to two
years in prison for each act of violation. The severity of criminal sanctions may well cause speakers
to remain silent rather than communicate even arguably unlawful words, ideas, and images. As a
practical matter, this increased deterrent effect, coupled with the risk of discriminatory enforcement
of vague regulations, poses greater U.S. Const. amend. I concerns than those implicated by certain
civil regulations.

xxxx

The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), 47 U.S.C.S. § 223, presents a great threat of
censoring speech that, in fact, falls outside the statute's scope. Given the vague contours of the
coverage of the statute, it unquestionably silences some speakers whose messages would be
entitled to constitutional protection. That danger provides further reason for insisting that the statute
not be overly broad. The CDA’s burden on protected speech cannot be justified if it could be avoided
by a more carefully drafted statute. (Emphasis ours)

Libel in the cyberspace can of course stain a person’s image with just one click of the mouse.
Scurrilous statements can spread and travel fast across the globe like bad news. Moreover,
cyberlibel often goes hand in hand with cyberbullying that oppresses the victim, his relatives, and
friends, evoking from mild to disastrous reactions. Still, a governmental purpose, which seeks to
regulate the use of this cyberspace communication technology to protect a person’s reputation and
peace of mind, cannot adopt means that will unnecessarily and broadly sweep, invading the area of
protected freedoms. 62

If such means are adopted, self-inhibition borne of fear of what sinister predicaments await internet
users will suppress otherwise robust discussion of public issues. Democracy will be threatened and
with it, all liberties. Penal laws should provide reasonably clear guidelines for law enforcement
officials and triers of facts to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. The terms "aiding or
63

abetting" constitute broad sweep that generates chilling effect on those who express themselves
through cyberspace posts, comments, and other messages. Hence, Section 5 of the cybercrime law
64

that punishes "aiding or abetting" libel on the cyberspace is a nullity.

When a penal statute encroaches upon the freedom of speech, a facial challenge grounded on the
void-for-vagueness doctrine is acceptable. The inapplicability of the doctrine must be carefully
delineated. As Justice Antonio T. Carpio explained in his dissent in Romualdez v. Commission on
Elections, "we must view these statements of the Court on the inapplicability of the overbreadth and
65

vagueness doctrines to penal statutes as appropriate only insofar as these doctrines are used to
mount ‘facial’ challenges to penal statutes not involving free speech."

In an "as applied" challenge, the petitioner who claims a violation of his constitutional right can raise
any constitutional ground – absence of due process, lack of fair notice, lack of ascertainable
standards, overbreadth, or vagueness. Here, one can challenge the constitutionality of a statute only
if he asserts a violation of his own rights. It prohibits one from assailing the constitutionality of the
statute based solely on the violation of the rights of third persons not before the court. This rule is
also known as the prohibition against third-party standing. 66

But this rule admits of exceptions. A petitioner may for instance mount a "facial" challenge to the
constitutionality of a statute even if he claims no violation of his own rights under the assailed statute
where it involves free speech on grounds of overbreadth or vagueness of the statute.

The rationale for this exception is to counter the "chilling effect" on protected speech that comes
from statutes violating free speech. A person who does not know whether his speech constitutes a
crime under an overbroad or vague law may simply restrain himself from speaking in order to avoid
being charged of a crime. The overbroad or vague law thus chills him into silence. 67

As already stated, the cyberspace is an incomparable, pervasive medium of communication. It is

inevitable that any government threat of punishment regarding certain uses of the medium creates a
chilling effect on the constitutionally-protected freedom of expression of the great masses that use it.
In this case, the particularly complex web of interaction on social media websites would give law
enforcers such latitude that they could arbitrarily or selectively enforce the law.

Who is to decide when to prosecute persons who boost the visibility of a posting on the internet by
liking it? Netizens are not given "fair notice" or warning as to what is criminal conduct and what is
lawful conduct. When a case is filed, how will the court ascertain whether or not one netizen’s
comment aided and abetted a cybercrime while another comment did not?

Of course, if the "Comment" does not merely react to the original posting but creates an altogether
new defamatory story against Armand like "He beats his wife and children," then that should be
considered an original posting published on the internet. Both the penal code and the cybercrime law
clearly punish authors of defamatory publications. Make no mistake, libel destroys reputations that
society values. Allowed to cascade in the internet, it will destroy relationships and, under certain
circumstances, will generate enmity and tension between social or economic groups, races, or
religions, exacerbating existing tension in their relationships.
In regard to the crime that targets child pornography, when "Google procures, stores, and indexes
child pornography and facilitates the completion of transactions involving the dissemination of child
pornography," does this make Google and its users aiders and abettors in the commission of child
pornography crimes? Byars highlights a feature in the American law on child pornography that the
68

Cybercrimes law lacks—the exemption of a provider or notably a plain user of interactive computer
service from civil liability for child pornography as follows:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of
any information provided by another information content provider and cannot be held civilly liable for
any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the
provider or user considers to be obscene...whether or not such material is constitutionally protected. 69

When a person replies to a Tweet containing child pornography, he effectively republishes it whether
wittingly or unwittingly. Does this make him a willing accomplice to the distribution of child
pornography? When a user downloads the Facebook mobile application, the user may give consent
to Facebook to access his contact details. In this way, certain information is forwarded to third parties
and unsolicited commercial communication could be disseminated on the basis of this
information. As the source of this information, is the user aiding the distribution of this
70

communication? The legislature needs to address this clearly to relieve users of annoying fear of
possible criminal prosecution.

Section 5 with respect to Section 4(c)(4) is unconstitutional. Its vagueness raises apprehension on
the part of internet users because of its obvious chilling effect on the freedom of expression,
especially since the crime of aiding or abetting ensnares all the actors in the cyberspace front in a
fuzzy way. What is more, as the petitioners point out, formal crimes such as libel are not punishable
unless consummated. In the absence of legislation tracing the interaction of netizens and their level
71

of responsibility such as in other countries, Section 5, in relation to Section 4(c)(4) on Libel, Section
4(c)(3) on Unsolicited Commercial Communications, and Section 4(c)(2) on Child Pornography,
cannot stand scrutiny.

But the crime of aiding or abetting the commission of cybercrimes under Section 5 should be
permitted to apply to Section 4(a)(1) on Illegal Access, Section 4(a)(2) on Illegal Interception, Section
4(a)(3) on Data Interference, Section 4(a)(4) on System Interference, Section 4(a)(5) on Misuse of
Devices, Section 4(a)(6) on Cyber-squatting, Section 4(b)(1) on Computer-related Forgery, Section
4(b)(2) on Computer-related Fraud, Section 4(b)(3) on Computer-related Identity Theft, and Section
4(c)(1) on Cybersex. None of these offenses borders on the exercise of the freedom of expression.

The crime of willfully attempting to commit any of these offenses is for the same reason not
objectionable. A hacker may for instance have done all that is necessary to illegally access another
party’s computer system but the security employed by the system’s lawful owner could frustrate his
effort. Another hacker may have gained access to usernames and passwords of others but fail to use
these because the system supervisor is alerted. If Section 5 that punishes any person who willfully
72

attempts to commit this specific offense is not upheld, the owner of the username and password
could not file a complaint against him for attempted hacking. But this is not right. The hacker should
not be freed from liability simply because of the vigilance of a lawful owner or his supervisor.

Petitioners of course claim that Section 5 lacks positive limits and could cover the innocent. While
73

this may be true with respect to cybercrimes that tend to sneak past the area of free expression, any
attempt to commit the other acts specified in Section 4(a)(1), Section 4(a)(2), Section 4(a)(3),
Section 4(a)(4), Section 4(a)(5), Section 4(a)(6), Section 4(b)(1), Section 4(b)(2), Section 4(b)(3),
and Section 4(c)(1) as well as the actors aiding and abetting the commission of such acts can be
identified with some reasonable certainty through adroit tracking of their works. Absent concrete
proof of the same, the innocent will of course be spared.

Section 6 of the Cybercrime Law

Section 6 provides:

Sec. 6. All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws,
if committed by, through and with the use of information and communications technologies shall be
covered by the relevant provisions of this Act: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one
(1) degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws,
as the case may be.

Section 6 merely makes commission of existing crimes through the internet a qualifying
circumstance. As the Solicitor General points out, there exists a substantial distinction between
crimes committed through the use of information and communications technology and similar crimes
committed using other means. In using the technology in question, the offender often evades
identification and is able to reach far more victims or cause greater harm. The distinction, therefore,
creates a basis for higher penalties for cybercrimes.

Section 7 of the Cybercrime Law

Section 7 provides:

Sec. 7. Liability under Other Laws. — A prosecution under this Act shall be without prejudice to any
liability for violation of any provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, or special laws.

The Solicitor General points out that Section 7 merely expresses the settled doctrine that a single set
of acts may be prosecuted and penalized simultaneously under two laws, a special law and the
Revised Penal Code. When two different laws define two crimes, prior jeopardy as to one does not
bar prosecution of the other although both offenses arise from the same fact, if each crime involves
some important act which is not an essential element of the other. With the exception of the crimes
74

of online libel and online child pornography, the Court would rather leave the determination of the
correct application of Section 7 to actual cases.

Online libel is different. There should be no question that if the published material on print, said to be
libelous, is again posted online or vice versa, that identical material cannot be the subject of two
separate libels. The two offenses, one a violation of Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code and the
other a violation of Section 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175 involve essentially the same elements and are in
fact one and the same offense. Indeed, the OSG itself claims that online libel under Section 4(c)(4) is
not a new crime but is one already punished under Article 353. Section 4(c)(4) merely establishes
the computer system as another means of publication. Charging the offender under both laws
75

would be a blatant violation of the proscription against double jeopardy. 76

The same is true with child pornography committed online. Section 4(c)(2) merely expands the
ACPA’s scope so as to include identical activities in cyberspace. As previously discussed, ACPA’s
definition of child pornography in fact already covers the use of "electronic, mechanical, digital,
optical, magnetic or any other means." Thus, charging the offender under both Section 4(c)(2) and
ACPA would likewise be tantamount to a violation of the constitutional prohibition against double
jeopardy.
Section 8 of the Cybercrime Law

Section 8 provides:

Sec. 8. Penalties. — Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Sections
4(a) and 4(b) of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment of prision mayor or a fine of at least
Two hundred thousand pesos (Ph₱200,000.00) up to a maximum amount commensurate to the
damage incurred or both.

Any person found guilty of the punishable act under Section 4(a)(5) shall be punished with
imprisonment of prision mayor or a fine of not more than Five hundred thousand pesos
(Ph₱500,000.00) or both.

If punishable acts in Section 4(a) are committed against critical infrastructure, the penalty of
reclusion temporal or a fine of at least Five hundred thousand pesos (Ph₱500,000.00) up to
maximum amount commensurate to the damage incurred or both, shall be imposed.

Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Section 4(c)(1) of this Act shall
be punished with imprisonment of prision mayor or a fine of at least Two hundred thousand pesos
(Ph₱200,000.00) but not exceeding One million pesos (Ph₱1,000,000.00) or both.

Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Section 4(c)(2) of this Act shall
be punished with the penalties as enumerated in Republic Act No. 9775 or the "Anti-Child
Pornography Act of 2009:" Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher
than that provided for in Republic Act No. 9775, if committed through a computer system.

Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Section 4(c)(3) shall be
punished with imprisonment of arresto mayor or a fine of at least Fifty thousand pesos
(Ph₱50,000.00) but not exceeding Two hundred fifty thousand pesos (Ph₱250,000.00) or both.

Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Section 5 shall be punished
with imprisonment one (1) degree lower than that of the prescribed penalty for the offense or a fine
of at least One hundred thousand pesos (Ph₱100,000.00) but not exceeding Five hundred thousand
pesos (Ph₱500,000.00) or both.

Section 8 provides for the penalties for the following crimes: Sections 4(a) on Offenses Against the
Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability of Computer Data and Systems; 4(b) on Computer-related
Offenses; 4(a)(5) on Misuse of Devices; when the crime punishable under 4(a) is committed against
critical infrastructure; 4(c)(1) on Cybersex; 4(c)(2) on Child Pornography; 4(c)(3) on Unsolicited
Commercial Communications; and Section 5 on Aiding or Abetting, and Attempt in the Commission
of Cybercrime.

The matter of fixing penalties for the commission of crimes is as a rule a legislative prerogative. Here
the legislature prescribed a measure of severe penalties for what it regards as deleterious
cybercrimes. They appear proportionate to the evil sought to be punished. The power to determine
penalties for offenses is not diluted or improperly wielded simply because at some prior time the act
or omission was but an element of another offense or might just have been connected with another
crime. Judges and magistrates can only interpret and apply them and have no authority to modify or
77

revise their range as determined by the legislative department.

The courts should not encroach on this prerogative of the lawmaking body. 78
Section 12 of the Cybercrime Law

Section 12 provides:

Sec. 12. Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data. — Law enforcement authorities, with due cause, shall
be authorized to collect or record by technical or electronic means traffic data in real-time associated
with specified communications transmitted by means of a computer system.

Traffic data refer only to the communication’s origin, destination, route, time, date, size, duration, or
type of underlying service, but not content, nor identities.

All other data to be collected or seized or disclosed will require a court warrant.

Service providers are required to cooperate and assist law enforcement authorities in the collection
or recording of the above-stated information.

The court warrant required under this section shall only be issued or granted upon written application
and the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce
and the showing: (1) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes enumerated
hereinabove has been committed, or is being committed, or is about to be committed; (2) that there
are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence that will be obtained is essential to the conviction of
any person for, or to the solution of, or to the prevention of, any such crimes; and (3) that there are
no other means readily available for obtaining such evidence.

Petitioners assail the grant to law enforcement agencies of the power to collect or record traffic data
in real time as tending to curtail civil liberties or provide opportunities for official abuse. They claim
that data showing where digital messages come from, what kind they are, and where they are
destined need not be incriminating to their senders or recipients before they are to be protected.
Petitioners invoke the right of every individual to privacy and to be protected from government
snooping into the messages or information that they send to one another.

The first question is whether or not Section 12 has a proper governmental purpose since a law may
require the disclosure of matters normally considered private but then only upon showing that such
requirement has a rational relation to the purpose of the law, that there is a compelling State
79

interest behind the law, and that the provision itself is narrowly drawn. In assessing regulations
80

affecting privacy rights, courts should balance the legitimate concerns of the State against
constitutional guarantees. 81

Undoubtedly, the State has a compelling interest in enacting the cybercrime law for there is a need
to put order to the tremendous activities in cyberspace for public good. To do this, it is within the
82

realm of reason that the government should be able to monitor traffic data to enhance its ability to
combat all sorts of cybercrimes.

Chapter IV of the cybercrime law, of which the collection or recording of traffic data is a part, aims to
provide law enforcement authorities with the power they need for spotting, preventing, and
investigating crimes committed in cyberspace. Crime-fighting is a state business. Indeed, as Chief
Justice Sereno points out, the Budapest Convention on Cybercrimes requires signatory countries to
adopt legislative measures to empower state authorities to collect or record "traffic data, in real time,
associated with specified communications." And this is precisely what Section 12 does. It
83

empowers law enforcement agencies in this country to collect or record such data.
But is not evidence of yesterday’s traffic data, like the scene of the crime after it has been
committed, adequate for fighting cybercrimes and, therefore, real-time data is superfluous for that
purpose? Evidently, it is not. Those who commit the crimes of accessing a computer system without
right, transmitting viruses, lasciviously exhibiting sexual organs or sexual activity for favor or
84 85

consideration; and producing child pornography could easily evade detection and prosecution by
86 87

simply moving the physical location of their computers or laptops from day to day. In this digital age,
the wicked can commit cybercrimes from virtually anywhere: from internet cafés, from kindred places
that provide free internet services, and from unregistered mobile internet connectors. Criminals using
cellphones under pre-paid arrangements and with unregistered SIM cards do not have listed
addresses and can neither be located nor identified. There are many ways the cyber criminals can
quickly erase their tracks. Those who peddle child pornography could use relays of computers to
mislead law enforcement authorities regarding their places of operations. Evidently, it is only real-
time traffic data collection or recording and a subsequent recourse to court-issued search and
seizure warrant that can succeed in ferreting them out.

Petitioners of course point out that the provisions of Section 12 are too broad and do not provide
ample safeguards against crossing legal boundaries and invading the people’s right to privacy. The
concern is understandable. Indeed, the Court recognizes in Morfe v. Mutuc that certain
88

constitutional guarantees work together to create zones of privacy wherein governmental powers
may not intrude, and that there exists an independent constitutional right of privacy. Such right to be
left alone has been regarded as the beginning of all freedoms. 89

But that right is not unqualified. In Whalen v. Roe, the United States Supreme Court classified
90

privacy into two categories: decisional privacy and informational privacy. Decisional privacy involves
the right to independence in making certain important decisions, while informational privacy refers to
the interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters. It is the latter right—the right to informational
privacy—that those who oppose government collection or recording of traffic data in real-time seek
to protect.

Informational privacy has two aspects: the right not to have private information disclosed, and the
right to live freely without surveillance and intrusion. In determining whether or not a matter is
91

entitled to the right to privacy, this Court has laid down a two-fold test. The first is a subjective test,
where one claiming the right must have an actual or legitimate expectation of privacy over a certain
matter. The second is an objective test, where his or her expectation of privacy must be one society
is prepared to accept as objectively reasonable. 92

Since the validity of the cybercrime law is being challenged, not in relation to its application to a
particular person or group, petitioners’ challenge to Section 12 applies to all information and
communications technology (ICT) users, meaning the large segment of the population who use all
sorts of electronic devices to communicate with one another. Consequently, the expectation of
privacy is to be measured from the general public’s point of view. Without reasonable expectation of
privacy, the right to it would have no basis in fact.

As the Solicitor General points out, an ordinary ICT user who courses his communication through a
service provider, must of necessity disclose to the latter, a third person, the traffic data needed for
connecting him to the recipient ICT user. For example, an ICT user who writes a text message
intended for another ICT user must furnish his service provider with his cellphone number and the
cellphone number of his recipient, accompanying the message sent. It is this information that creates
the traffic data. Transmitting communications is akin to putting a letter in an envelope properly
addressed, sealing it closed, and sending it through the postal service. Those who post letters have
no expectations that no one will read the information appearing outside the envelope.
Computer data—messages of all kinds—travel across the internet in packets and in a way that may
be likened to parcels of letters or things that are sent through the posts. When data is sent from any
one source, the content is broken up into packets and around each of these packets is a wrapper or
header. This header contains the traffic data: information that tells computers where the packet
originated, what kind of data is in the packet (SMS, voice call, video, internet chat messages, email,
online browsing data, etc.), where the packet is going, and how the packet fits together with other
packets. The difference is that traffic data sent through the internet at times across the ocean do not
93

disclose the actual names and addresses (residential or office) of the sender and the recipient, only
their coded internet protocol (IP) addresses. The packets travel from one computer system to
another where their contents are pieced back together.

Section 12 does not permit law enforcement authorities to look into the contents of the messages
and uncover the identities of the sender and the recipient.

For example, when one calls to speak to another through his cellphone, the service provider’s
communication’s system will put his voice message into packets and send them to the other
person’s cellphone where they are refitted together and heard. The latter’s spoken reply is sent to
the caller in the same way. To be connected by the service provider, the sender reveals his cellphone
number to the service provider when he puts his call through. He also reveals the cellphone number
to the person he calls. The other ways of communicating electronically follow the same basic pattern.

In Smith v. Maryland, cited by the Solicitor General, the United States Supreme Court reasoned that
94

telephone users in the ‘70s must realize that they necessarily convey phone numbers to the
telephone company in order to complete a call. That Court ruled that even if there is an expectation
that phone numbers one dials should remain private, such expectation is not one that society is
prepared to recognize as reasonable.

In much the same way, ICT users must know that they cannot communicate or exchange data with
one another over cyberspace except through some service providers to whom they must submit
certain traffic data that are needed for a successful cyberspace communication. The conveyance of
this data takes them out of the private sphere, making the expectation to privacy in regard to them
an expectation that society is not prepared to recognize as reasonable.

The Court, however, agrees with Justices Carpio and Brion that when seemingly random bits of
traffic data are gathered in bulk, pooled together, and analyzed, they reveal patterns of activities
which can then be used to create profiles of the persons under surveillance. With enough traffic
data, analysts may be able to determine a person’s close associations, religious views, political
affiliations, even sexual preferences. Such information is likely beyond what the public may expect to
be disclosed, and clearly falls within matters protected by the right to privacy. But has the procedure
that Section 12 of the law provides been drawn narrowly enough to protect individual rights?

Section 12 empowers law enforcement authorities, "with due cause," to collect or record by technical
or electronic means traffic data in real-time. Petitioners point out that the phrase "due cause" has no
precedent in law or jurisprudence and that whether there is due cause or not is left to the discretion
of the police. Replying to this, the Solicitor General asserts that Congress is not required to define
the meaning of every word it uses in drafting the law.

Indeed, courts are able to save vague provisions of law through statutory construction. But the
cybercrime law, dealing with a novel situation, fails to hint at the meaning it intends for the phrase
"due cause." The Solicitor General suggests that "due cause" should mean "just reason or motive"
and "adherence to a lawful procedure." But the Court cannot draw this meaning since Section 12
does not even bother to relate the collection of data to the probable commission of a particular
crime. It just says, "with due cause," thus justifying a general gathering of data. It is akin to the use of
a general search warrant that the Constitution prohibits.

Due cause is also not descriptive of the purpose for which data collection will be used. Will the law
enforcement agencies use the traffic data to identify the perpetrator of a cyber attack? Or will it be
used to build up a case against an identified suspect? Can the data be used to prevent cybercrimes
from happening?

The authority that Section 12 gives law enforcement agencies is too sweeping and lacks restraint.
While it says that traffic data collection should not disclose identities or content data, such restraint is
but an illusion. Admittedly, nothing can prevent law enforcement agencies holding these data in their
hands from looking into the identity of their sender or receiver and what the data contains. This will
unnecessarily expose the citizenry to leaked information or, worse, to extortion from certain bad
elements in these agencies.

Section 12, of course, limits the collection of traffic data to those "associated with specified
communications." But this supposed limitation is no limitation at all since, evidently, it is the law
enforcement agencies that would specify the target communications. The power is virtually limitless,
enabling law enforcement authorities to engage in "fishing expedition," choosing whatever specified
communication they want. This evidently threatens the right of individuals to privacy.

The Solicitor General points out that Section 12 needs to authorize collection of traffic data "in real
time" because it is not possible to get a court warrant that would authorize the search of what is akin
to a "moving vehicle." But warrantless search is associated with a police officer’s determination of
probable cause that a crime has been committed, that there is no opportunity for getting a warrant,
and that unless the search is immediately carried out, the thing to be searched stands to be
removed. These preconditions are not provided in Section 12.

The Solicitor General is honest enough to admit that Section 12 provides minimal protection to
internet users and that the procedure envisioned by the law could be better served by providing for
more robust safeguards. His bare assurance that law enforcement authorities will not abuse the
provisions of Section 12 is of course not enough. The grant of the power to track cyberspace
communications in real time and determine their sources and destinations must be narrowly drawn
to preclude abuses. 95

Petitioners also ask that the Court strike down Section 12 for being violative of the void-for-
vagueness doctrine and the overbreadth doctrine. These doctrines however, have been consistently
held by this Court to apply only to free speech cases. But Section 12 on its own neither regulates nor
punishes any type of speech. Therefore, such analysis is unnecessary.

This Court is mindful that advances in technology allow the government and kindred institutions to
monitor individuals and place them under surveillance in ways that have previously been impractical
or even impossible. "All the forces of a technological age x x x operate to narrow the area of privacy
and facilitate intrusions into it. In modern terms, the capacity to maintain and support this enclave of
private life marks the difference between a democratic and a totalitarian society." The Court must
96

ensure that laws seeking to take advantage of these technologies be written with specificity and
definiteness as to ensure respect for the rights that the Constitution guarantees.

Section 13 of the Cybercrime Law

Section 13 provides:
Sec. 13. Preservation of Computer Data. — The integrity of traffic data and subscriber information
relating to communication services provided by a service provider shall be preserved for a minimum
period of six (6) months from the date of the transaction. Content data shall be similarly preserved
for six (6) months from the date of receipt of the order from law enforcement authorities requiring its
preservation.

Law enforcement authorities may order a one-time extension for another six (6) months: Provided,
That once computer data preserved, transmitted or stored by a service provider is used as evidence
in a case, the mere furnishing to such service provider of the transmittal document to the Office of
the Prosecutor shall be deemed a notification to preserve the computer data until the termination of
the case.

The service provider ordered to preserve computer data shall keep confidential the order and its
compliance.

Petitioners in G.R. 203391 claim that Section 13 constitutes an undue deprivation of the right to
97

property. They liken the data preservation order that law enforcement authorities are to issue as a
form of garnishment of personal property in civil forfeiture proceedings. Such order prevents internet
users from accessing and disposing of traffic data that essentially belong to them.

No doubt, the contents of materials sent or received through the internet belong to their authors or
recipients and are to be considered private communications. But it is not clear that a service provider
has an obligation to indefinitely keep a copy of the same as they pass its system for the benefit of
users. By virtue of Section 13, however, the law now requires service providers to keep traffic data
and subscriber information relating to communication services for at least six months from the date
of the transaction and those relating to content data for at least six months from receipt of the order
for their preservation.

Actually, the user ought to have kept a copy of that data when it crossed his computer if he was so
minded. The service provider has never assumed responsibility for their loss or deletion while in its
keep.

At any rate, as the Solicitor General correctly points out, the data that service providers preserve on
orders of law enforcement authorities are not made inaccessible to users by reason of the issuance
of such orders. The process of preserving data will not unduly hamper the normal transmission or
use of the same.

Section 14 of the Cybercrime Law

Section 14 provides:

Sec. 14. Disclosure of Computer Data. — Law enforcement authorities, upon securing a court
warrant, shall issue an order requiring any person or service provider to disclose or submit
subscriber’s information, traffic data or relevant data in his/its possession or control within seventy-
two (72) hours from receipt of the order in relation to a valid complaint officially docketed and
assigned for investigation and the disclosure is necessary and relevant for the purpose of
investigation.

The process envisioned in Section 14 is being likened to the issuance of a subpoena. Petitioners’
objection is that the issuance of subpoenas is a judicial function. But it is well-settled that the power
to issue subpoenas is not exclusively a judicial function. Executive agencies have the power to issue
subpoena as an adjunct of their investigatory powers. 98

Besides, what Section 14 envisions is merely the enforcement of a duly issued court warrant, a
function usually lodged in the hands of law enforcers to enable them to carry out their executive
functions. The prescribed procedure for disclosure would not constitute an unlawful search or
seizure nor would it violate the privacy of communications and correspondence. Disclosure can be
made only after judicial intervention.

Section 15 of the Cybercrime Law

Section 15 provides:

Sec. 15. Search, Seizure and Examination of Computer Data. — Where a search and seizure
warrant is properly issued, the law enforcement authorities shall likewise have the following powers
and duties.

Within the time period specified in the warrant, to conduct interception, as defined in this Act, and:

(a) To secure a computer system or a computer data storage medium;

(b) To make and retain a copy of those computer data secured;

(c) To maintain the integrity of the relevant stored computer data;

(d) To conduct forensic analysis or examination of the computer data storage medium; and

(e) To render inaccessible or remove those computer data in the accessed computer or
computer and communications network.

Pursuant thereof, the law enforcement authorities may order any person who has knowledge about
the functioning of the computer system and the measures to protect and preserve the computer data
therein to provide, as is reasonable, the necessary information, to enable the undertaking of the
search, seizure and examination.

Law enforcement authorities may request for an extension of time to complete the examination of
the computer data storage medium and to make a return thereon but in no case for a period longer
than thirty (30) days from date of approval by the court.

Petitioners challenge Section 15 on the assumption that it will supplant established search and
seizure procedures. On its face, however, Section 15 merely enumerates the duties of law
enforcement authorities that would ensure the proper collection, preservation, and use of computer
system or data that have been seized by virtue of a court warrant. The exercise of these duties do
not pose any threat on the rights of the person from whom they were taken. Section 15 does not
appear to supersede existing search and seizure rules but merely supplements them.

Section 17 of the Cybercrime Law

Section 17 provides:
Sec. 17. Destruction of Computer Data. — Upon expiration of the periods as provided in Sections 13
and 15, service providers and law enforcement authorities, as the case may be, shall immediately
and completely destroy the computer data subject of a preservation and examination.

Section 17 would have the computer data, previous subject of preservation or examination,
destroyed or deleted upon the lapse of the prescribed period. The Solicitor General justifies this as
necessary to clear up the service provider’s storage systems and prevent overload. It would also
ensure that investigations are quickly concluded.

Petitioners claim that such destruction of computer data subject of previous preservation or
examination violates the user’s right against deprivation of property without due process of law. But,
as already stated, it is unclear that the user has a demandable right to require the service provider to
have that copy of the data saved indefinitely for him in its storage system. If he wanted them
preserved, he should have saved them in his computer when he generated the data or received it.
He could also request the service provider for a copy before it is deleted.

Section 19 of the Cybercrime Law

Section 19 empowers the Department of Justice to restrict or block access to computer data:

Sec. 19. Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data.— When a computer data is prima facie
found to be in violation of the provisions of this Act, the DOJ shall issue an order to restrict or block
access to such computer data.

Petitioners contest Section 19 in that it stifles freedom of expression and violates the right against
unreasonable searches and seizures. The Solicitor General concedes that this provision may be
unconstitutional. But since laws enjoy a presumption of constitutionality, the Court must satisfy itself
that Section 19 indeed violates the freedom and right mentioned.

Computer data may refer to entire programs or lines of code, including malware, as well as files that
99

contain texts, images, audio, or video recordings. Without having to go into a lengthy discussion of
property rights in the digital space, it is indisputable that computer data, produced or created by their
writers or authors may constitute personal property. Consequently, they are protected from
unreasonable searches and seizures, whether while stored in their personal computers or in the
service provider’s systems.

Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that the right to be secure in one’s papers and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable. Further, it states that no search warrant shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge. Here, the Government, in effect, seizes and places the
computer data under its control and disposition without a warrant. The Department of Justice order
cannot substitute for judicial search warrant.

The content of the computer data can also constitute speech. In such a case, Section 19 operates
as a restriction on the freedom of expression over cyberspace. Certainly not all forms of speech are
protected. Legislature may, within constitutional bounds, declare certain kinds of expression as
illegal. But for an executive officer to seize content alleged to be unprotected without any judicial
warrant, it is not enough for him to be of the opinion that such content violates some law, for to do so
would make him judge, jury, and executioner all rolled into one. 100
Not only does Section 19 preclude any judicial intervention, but it also disregards jurisprudential
guidelines established to determine the validity of restrictions on speech. Restraints on free speech
are generally evaluated on one of or a combination of three tests: the dangerous tendency doctrine,
the balancing of interest test, and the clear and present danger rule. Section 19, however, merely
101

requires that the data to be blocked be found prima facie in violation of any provision of the
cybercrime law. Taking Section 6 into consideration, this can actually be made to apply in relation to
any penal provision. It does not take into consideration any of the three tests mentioned above.

The Court is therefore compelled to strike down Section 19 for being violative of the constitutional
guarantees to freedom of expression and against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Section 20 of the Cybercrime Law

Section 20 provides:

Sec. 20. Noncompliance. — Failure to comply with the provisions of Chapter IV hereof specifically
the orders from law enforcement authorities shall be punished as a violation of Presidential Decree
No. 1829 with imprisonment of prision correctional in its maximum period or a fine of One hundred
thousand pesos (Php100,000.00) or both, for each and every noncompliance with an order issued
by law enforcement authorities.

Petitioners challenge Section 20, alleging that it is a bill of attainder. The argument is that the mere
failure to comply constitutes a legislative finding of guilt, without regard to situations where non-
compliance would be reasonable or valid.

But since the non-compliance would be punished as a violation of Presidential Decree (P.D.)
1829, Section 20 necessarily incorporates elements of the offense which are defined therein. If
102

Congress had intended for Section 20 to constitute an offense in and of itself, it would not have had
to make reference to any other statue or provision.

P.D. 1829 states:

Section 1. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period, or a fine ranging from 1,000 to
6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs,
impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of
criminal cases by committing any of the following acts:

x x x.

Thus, the act of non-compliance, for it to be punishable, must still be done "knowingly or willfully."
There must still be a judicial determination of guilt, during which, as the Solicitor General assumes,
defense and justifications for non-compliance may be raised. Thus, Section 20 is valid insofar as it
applies to the provisions of Chapter IV which are not struck down by the Court.

Sections 24 and 26(a) of the Cybercrime Law

Sections 24 and 26(a) provide:

Sec. 24. Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center.– There is hereby created, within thirty
(30) days from the effectivity of this Act, an inter-agency body to be known as the Cybercrime
Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC), under the administrative supervision of the Office of
the President, for policy coordination among concerned agencies and for the formulation and
enforcement of the national cybersecurity plan.

Sec. 26. Powers and Functions.– The CICC shall have the following powers and functions:

(a) To formulate a national cybersecurity plan and extend immediate assistance of real time
commission of cybercrime offenses through a computer emergency response team (CERT); x x x.

Petitioners mainly contend that Congress invalidly delegated its power when it gave the Cybercrime
Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC) the power to formulate a national cybersecurity plan
without any sufficient standards or parameters for it to follow.

In order to determine whether there is undue delegation of legislative power, the Court has adopted
two tests: the completeness test and the sufficient standard test. Under the first test, the law must be
complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature such that when it reaches the
delegate, the only thing he will have to do is to enforce it. The second test mandates adequate
1avvphi1

guidelines or limitations in the law to determine the boundaries of the delegate’s authority and
prevent the delegation from running riot. 103

Here, the cybercrime law is complete in itself when it directed the CICC to formulate and implement
a national cybersecurity plan. Also, contrary to the position of the petitioners, the law gave sufficient
standards for the CICC to follow when it provided a definition of cybersecurity.

Cybersecurity refers to the collection of tools, policies, risk management approaches, actions,
training, best practices, assurance and technologies that can be used to protect cyber environment
and organization and user’s assets. This definition serves as the parameters within which CICC
104

should work in formulating the cybersecurity plan.

Further, the formulation of the cybersecurity plan is consistent with the policy of the law to "prevent
and combat such [cyber] offenses by facilitating their detection, investigation, and prosecution at
both the domestic and international levels, and by providing arrangements for fast and reliable
international cooperation." This policy is clearly adopted in the interest of law and order, which has
105

been considered as sufficient standard. Hence, Sections 24 and 26(a) are likewise valid.
106

WHEREFORE, the Court DECLARES:

1. VOID for being UNCONSTITUTIONAL:

a. Section 4(c)(3) of Republic Act 10175 that penalizes posting of unsolicited

commercial communications;

b. Section 12 that authorizes the collection or recording of traffic data in real-time;

and

c. Section 19 of the same Act that authorizes the Department of Justice to restrict or
block access to suspected Computer Data.

2. VALID and CONSTITUTIONAL:

a. Section 4(a)(1) that penalizes accessing a computer system without right;

 b. Section 4(a)(3) that penalizes data interference, including transmission of viruses;

c. Section 4(a)(6) that penalizes cyber-squatting or acquiring domain name over the
internet in bad faith to the prejudice of others;

d. Section 4(b)(3) that penalizes identity theft or the use or misuse of identifying
information belonging to another;

e. Section 4(c)(1) that penalizes cybersex or the lascivious exhibition of sexual

organs or sexual activity for favor or consideration;

f. Section 4(c)(2) that penalizes the production of child pornography;

g. Section 6 that imposes penalties one degree higher when crimes defined under
the Revised Penal Code are committed with the use of information and
communications technologies;

h. Section 8 that prescribes the penalties for cybercrimes;

i. Section 13 that permits law enforcement authorities to require service providers to

preserve traffic data and subscriber information as well as specified content data for
six months;

j. Section 14 that authorizes the disclosure of computer data under a court-issued

warrant;

k. Section 15 that authorizes the search, seizure, and examination of computer data
under a court-issued warrant;

l. Section 17 that authorizes the destruction of previously preserved computer data

after the expiration of the prescribed holding periods;

m. Section 20 that penalizes obstruction of justice in relation to cybercrime

investigations;

n. Section 24 that establishes a Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center

(CICC);

o. Section 26(a) that defines the CICC’s Powers and Functions; and

p. Articles 353, 354, 361, and 362 of the Revised Penal Code that penalizes libel.

Further, the Court DECLARES:

1. Section 4(c)(4) that penalizes online libel as VALID and CONSTITUTIONAL with respect
to the original author of the post; but VOID and UNCONSTITUTIONAL with respect to others
who simply receive the post and react to it; and

2. Section 5 that penalizes aiding or abetting and attempt in the commission of cybercrimes
as VA L I D and CONSTITUTIONAL only in relation to Section 4(a)(1) on Illegal Access,
 Section 4(a)(2) on Illegal Interception, Section 4(a)(3) on Data Interference, Section 4(a)(4)
on System

Interference, Section 4(a)(5) on Misuse of Devices, Section 4(a)(6) on Cyber-squatting, Section 4(b)
(1) on Computer-related Forgery, Section 4(b)(2) on Computer-related Fraud, Section 4(b)(3) on
Computer-related Identity Theft, and Section 4(c)(1) on Cybersex; but VOID and
UNCONSTITUTIONAL with respect to Sections 4(c)(2) on Child Pornography, 4(c)(3) on Unsolicited
Commercial Communications, and 4(c)(4) on online Libel. 1âwphi1

Lastly, the Court RESOLVES to LEAVE THE DETERMINATION of the correct application of Section
7 that authorizes prosecution of the offender under both the Revised Penal Code and Republic Act
10175 to actual cases, WITH THE EXCEPTION of the crimes of:

1. Online libel as to which, charging the offender under both Section 4(c)(4) of Republic Act
10175 and Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code constitutes a violation of the proscription
against double jeopardy; as well as

2. Child pornography committed online as to which, charging the offender under both Section
4(c)(2) of Republic Act 10175 and Republic Act 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of
2009 also constitutes a violation of the same proscription, and, in respect to these, is VOID
and UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

SO ORDERED.
 EN BANC

G.R. No. 209287 July 1, 2014

MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO, CHAIRPERSON, BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN; JUDY

M. TAGUIWALO, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES DILIMAN, CO-
CHAIRPERSON, PAGBABAGO; HENRI KAHN, CONCERNED CITIZENS MOVEMENT; REP. LUZ
ILAGAN, GABRIELA WOMEN'S PARTY REPRESENTATIVE; REP. CARLOS ISAGANI ZARATE,
BAY AN MUNA PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE; RENATO M. REYES, JR., SECRETARY
GENERAL OF BAYAN; MANUEL K. DAYRIT, CHAIRMAN, ANG KAPATIRAN PARTY; VENCER
MARI E. CRISOSTOMO, CHAIRPERSON, ANAKBAYAN; VICTOR VILLANUEVA, CONVENOR,
YOUTH ACT NOW, Petitioners,
vs.
BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES;
PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; AND FLORENCIO B. ABAD, SECRETARY
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, Respondents.

x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 209135

AUGUSTO L. SY JUCO JR., Ph.D., Petitioner,

vs.
FLORENCIO B. ABAD, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET
AND MANAGEMENT; AND HON. FRANKLIN MAGTUNAO DRILON, IN HIS CAP A CITY AS THE
SENATE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 209136

MANUELITO R. LUNA, Petitioner,

vs.
SECRETARY FLORENCIO ABAD, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS HEAD OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT; AND EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO
OCHOA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ALTER EGO OF THE PRESIDENT, Respondents.

x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 209155

ATTY. JOSE MALV AR VILLEGAS, JR., Petitioner,

vs.
THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR.; AND THE SECRETARY
OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Respondents.

x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 209164

PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), REPRESENTED BY DEAN
FROILAN M. BACUNGAN, BENJAMIN E. DIOKNO AND LEONOR M. BRIONES, Petitioners,
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT AND/OR HON. FLORENCIO B.
ABAD, Respondents.

x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 209260

INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES (IBP), Petitioner,

vs.
SECRETARY FLORENCIO B. ABAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT
(DBM),Respondent.

x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 209442

GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA; BISHOP REUBEN MABANTE AND REV. JOSE L.
GONZALEZ,Petitioners,
vs.
PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, THE SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
REPRESENTED BY SENATE PRESIDENT FRANKLIN M. DRILON; THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, REPRESENTED BY SPEAKER FELICIANO BELMONTE, JR.; THE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR.;
THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY
FLORENCIO ABAD; THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY
CESAR V. PURISIMA; AND THE BUREAU OF TREASURY, REPRESENTED BY ROSALIA V. DE
LEON, Respondents.

x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 209517

CONFEDERATION FOR UNITY, RECOGNITION AND ADV AN CEMENT OF GOVERNMENT

EMPLOYEES (COURAGE), REPRESENTED BY ITS 1ST VICE PRESIDENT, SANTIAGO
DASMARINAS, JR.; ROSALINDA NARTATES, FOR HERSELF AND AS NATIONAL PRESIDENT
OF THE CONSOLIDATED UNION OF EMPLOYEES NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY
(CUENHA); MANUEL BACLAGON, FOR HIMSELF AND AS PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIAL
WELFARE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT CENTRAL OFFICE (SWEAP-DSWD CO); ANTONIA PASCUAL,
FOR HERSELF AND AS NATIONAL PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN
REFORM EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (DAREA); ALBERT MAGALANG, FOR HIMSELF AND
AS PRESIDENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND MANAGEMENT BUREAU EMPLOYEES UNION
(EMBEU); AND MARCIAL ARABA, FOR HIMSELF AND AS PRESIDENT OF THE KAPISANAN
PARA SA KAGALINGAN NG MGA KAW ANI NG MMDA (KKKMMDA), Petitioners,
vs.
BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO Ill, PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES;
PAQUITO OCHOA, JR., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; AND HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD,
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, Respondents.
x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 209569

VOLUNTEERS AGAINST CRIME AND CORRUPTION (VACC), REPRESENTED BY DANTE L.

JIMENEZ,Petitioner,
vs.
PAQUITO N. OCHOA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AND FLORENCIO B. ABAD, SECRETARY OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, Respondents.

DECISION

BERSAMIN, J.:

For resolution are the consolidated petitions assailing the constitutionality of the Disbursement
Acceleration Program(DAP), National Budget Circular (NBC) No. 541, and related issuances of the
Department of Budget and Management (DBM) implementing the DAP.

At the core of the controversy is Section 29(1) of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, a provision of
the fundamental law that firmly ordains that "[n]o money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in
pursuance of an appropriation made by law." The tenor and context of the challenges posed by the
petitioners against the DAP indicate that the DAP contravened this provision by allowing the
Executive to allocate public money pooled from programmed and unprogrammed funds of its various
agencies in the guise of the President exercising his constitutional authority under Section 25(5) of
the 1987 Constitution to transfer funds out of savings to augment the appropriations of offices within
the Executive Branch of the Government. But the challenges are further complicated by the
interjection of allegations of transfer of funds to agencies or offices outside of the Executive.

Antecedents

What has precipitated the controversy?

On September 25, 2013, Sen. Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada delivered a privilege speech in the Senate of
the Philippines to reveal that some Senators, including himself, had been allotted an additional ₱50
Million each as "incentive" for voting in favor of the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.

Responding to Sen. Estrada’s revelation, Secretary Florencio Abad of the DBM issued a public
statement entitled Abad: Releases to Senators Part of Spending Acceleration Program, explaining
1

that the funds released to the Senators had been part of the DAP, a program designed by the DBM
to ramp up spending to accelerate economic expansion. He clarified that the funds had been
released to the Senators based on their letters of request for funding; and that it was not the first
time that releases from the DAP had been made because the DAP had already been instituted in
2011 to ramp up spending after sluggish disbursements had caused the growth of the gross
domestic product (GDP) to slow down. He explained that the funds under the DAP were usually
taken from (1) unreleased appropriations under Personnel Services; (2) unprogrammed funds; (3)
2

carry-over appropriations unreleased from the previous year; and (4) budgets for slow-moving items
or projects that had been realigned to support faster-disbursing projects.

The DBM soon came out to claim in its website that the DAP releases had been sourced from
3

savings generated by the Government, and from unprogrammed funds; and that the savings had
been derived from (1) the pooling of unreleased appropriations, like unreleased Personnel
Services appropriations that would lapse at the end of the year, unreleased appropriations of slow-
4

moving projects and discontinued projects per zero based budgeting findings; and (2) the
5

withdrawal of unobligated allotments also for slow-moving programs and projects that had been
earlier released to the agencies of the National Government.

The DBM listed the following as the legal bases for the DAP’s use of savings, namely: (1) Section
6

25(5), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, which granted to the President the authority to augment an
item for his office in the general appropriations law; (2) Section 49 (Authority to Use Savings for
Certain Purposes) and Section 38 (Suspension of Expenditure Appropriations), Chapter 5, Book VI
of Executive Order (EO) No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987); and (3) the General Appropriations
Acts (GAAs) of 2011, 2012 and 2013, particularly their provisions on the (a) use of savings; (b)
meanings of savings and augmentation; and (c) priority in the use of savings.

As for the use of unprogrammed funds under the DAP, the DBM cited as legal bases the special
provisions on unprogrammed fund contained in the GAAs of 2011, 2012 and 2013.

The revelation of Sen. Estrada and the reactions of Sec. Abad and the DBM brought the DAP to the
consciousness of the Nation for the first time, and made this present controversy inevitable. That the
issues against the DAP came at a time when the Nation was still seething in anger over
Congressional pork barrel – "an appropriation of government spending meant for localized projects
and secured solely or primarily to bring money to a representative’s district" – excited the Nation as
7

heatedly as the pork barrel controversy.

Nine petitions assailing the constitutionality of the DAP and the issuances relating to the DAP were
filed within days of each other, as follows: G.R. No. 209135 (Syjuco), on October 7, 2013; G.R. No.
209136 (Luna), on October 7, 2013; G.R. No. 209155 (Villegas), on October 16, 2013; G.R. No.
8

209164 (PHILCONSA), on October 8, 2013; G.R. No. 209260 (IBP), on October 16, 2013; G.R. No.
209287 (Araullo), on October 17, 2013; G.R. No. 209442 (Belgica), on October 29, 2013; G.R. No.
209517 (COURAGE), on November6, 2013; and G.R. No. 209569 (VACC), on November 8, 2013.

In G.R. No. 209287 (Araullo), the petitioners brought to the Court’s attention NBC No. 541 (Adoption
of Operational Efficiency Measure – Withdrawal of Agencies’ Unobligated Allotments as of June 30,
2012), alleging that NBC No. 541, which was issued to implement the DAP, directed the withdrawal
of unobligated allotments as of June 30, 2012 of government agencies and offices with low levels of
obligations, both for continuing and current allotments.

In due time, the respondents filed their Consolidated Comment through the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG).

The Court directed the holding of oral arguments on the significant issues raised and joined.

Issues

Under the Advisory issued on November 14, 2013, the presentations of the parties during the oral
arguments were limited to the following, to wit:

Procedural Issue:

A. Whether or not certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus are proper remedies to assail the
constitutionality and validity of the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), National Budget
Circular (NBC) No. 541, and all other executive issuances allegedly implementing the DAP.
Subsumed in this issue are whether there is a controversy ripe for judicial determination, and the
standing of petitioners.

Substantive Issues:

B. Whether or not the DAP violates Sec. 29, Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution, which provides: "No
money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law."

C. Whether or not the DAP, NBC No. 541, and all other executive issuances allegedly implementing
the DAP violate Sec. 25(5), Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution insofar as:

(a)They treat the unreleased appropriations and unobligated allotments withdrawn

from government agencies as "savings" as the term is used in Sec. 25(5), in relation
to the provisions of the GAAs of 2011, 2012 and 2013;

(b)They authorize the disbursement of funds for projects or programs not provided in
the GAAs for the Executive Department; and

(c)They "augment" discretionary lump sum appropriations in the GAAs.

D. Whether or not the DAP violates: (1) the Equal Protection Clause, (2) the system of checks and
balances, and (3) the principle of public accountability enshrined in the 1987 Constitution
considering that it authorizes the release of funds upon the request of legislators.

E. Whether or not factual and legal justification exists to issue a temporary restraining order to
restrain the implementation of the DAP, NBC No. 541, and all other executive issuances allegedly
implementing the DAP.

In its Consolidated Comment, the OSG raised the matter of unprogrammed funds in order to support
its argument regarding the President’s power to spend. During the oral arguments, the propriety of
releasing unprogrammed funds to support projects under the DAP was considerably discussed. The
petitioners in G.R. No. 209287 (Araullo) and G.R. No. 209442 (Belgica) dwelled on unprogrammed
funds in their respective memoranda. Hence, an additional issue for the oral arguments is stated as
follows:

F. Whether or not the release of unprogrammed funds under the DAP was in accord with the GAAs.

During the oral arguments held on November 19, 2013, the Court directed Sec. Abad to submit a list
of savings brought under the DAP that had been sourced from (a) completed programs; (b)
discontinued or abandoned programs; (c) unpaid appropriations for compensation; (d) a certified
copy of the President’s directive dated June 27, 2012 referred to in NBC No. 541; and (e) all
circulars or orders issued in relation to the DAP.
9

In compliance, the OSG submitted several documents, as follows:

(1) A certified copy of the Memorandum for the President dated June 25, 2012 (Omnibus
Authority to Consolidate Savings/Unutilized Balances and their Realignment); 10

(2) Circulars and orders, which the respondents identified as related to the DAP, namely:
 a. NBC No. 528 dated January 3, 2011 (Guidelines on the Release of Funds for FY
2011);

b. NBC No. 535 dated December 29, 2011 (Guidelines on the Release of Funds for
FY 2012);

c. NBC No. 541 dated July 18, 2012 (Adoption of Operational Efficiency Measure –
Withdrawal of Agencies’ Unobligated Allotments as of June 30, 2012);

d. NBC No. 545 dated January 2, 2013 (Guidelines on the Release of Funds for FY
2013);

e. DBM Circular Letter No. 2004-2 dated January 26, 2004 (Budgetary Treatment of
Commitments/Obligations of the National Government);

f. COA-DBM Joint Circular No. 2013-1 dated March 15, 2013 (Revised Guidelines on
the Submission of Quarterly Accountability Reports on Appropriations, Allotments,
Obligations and Disbursements);

g. NBC No. 440 dated January 30, 1995 (Adoption of a Simplified Fund Release
System in the Government).

(3) A breakdown of the sources of savings, including savings from discontinued projects and
unpaid appropriations for compensation from 2011 to 2013

On January 28, 2014, the OSG, to comply with the Resolution issued on January 21, 2014 directing
the respondents to submit the documents not yet submitted in compliance with the directives of the
Court or its Members, submitted several evidence packets to aid the Court in understanding the
factual bases of the DAP, to wit:

(1) First Evidence Packet – containing seven memoranda issued by the DBM through Sec.
11

Abad, inclusive of annexes, listing in detail the 116 DAP identified projects approved and
duly signed by the President, as follows:

a. Memorandum for the President dated October 12, 2011 (FY 2011 Proposed
Disbursement Acceleration Program (Projects and Sources of Funds);

b. Memorandum for the President dated December 12, 2011 (Omnibus Authority to
Consolidate Savings/Unutilized Balances and its Realignment);

c. Memorandum for the President dated June 25, 2012 (Omnibus Authority to
Consolidate Savings/Unutilized Balances and their Realignment);

d. Memorandum for the President dated September 4, 2012 (Release of funds for
other priority projects and expenditures of the Government);

e. Memorandum for the President dated December 19, 2012 (Proposed Priority
Projects and Expenditures of the Government);
 f. Memorandum for the President dated May 20, 2013 (Omnibus Authority to
Consolidate Savings/Unutilized Balances and their Realignment to Fund the
Quarterly Disbursement Acceleration Program); and

g. Memorandum for the President dated September 25, 2013 (Funding for the Task
Force Pablo Rehabilitation Plan).

(2) Second Evidence Packet – consisting of 15 applications of the DAP, with their
12

corresponding Special Allotment Release Orders (SAROs) and appropriation covers;

(3) Third Evidence Packet – containing a list and descriptions of 12 projects under the DAP;
13

(4) Fourth Evidence Packet – identifying the DAP-related portions of the Annual Financial
14

Report (AFR) of the Commission on Audit for 2011 and 2012;

(5) Fifth Evidence Packet – containing a letter of Department of Transportation and

15

Communications(DOTC) Sec. Joseph Abaya addressed to Sec. Abad recommending the

withdrawal of funds from his agency, inclusive of annexes; and

(6) Sixth Evidence Packet – a print-out of the Solicitor General’s visual presentation for the
16

January 28, 2014 oral arguments.

On February 5, 2014, the OSG forwarded the Seventh Evidence Packet, which listed the sources
17 18

of funds brought under the DAP, the uses of such funds per project or activity pursuant to DAP, and
the legal bases thereof.

On February 14, 2014, the OSG submitted another set of documents in further compliance with the
Resolution dated January 28, 2014, viz:

(1) Certified copies of the certifications issued by the Bureau of Treasury to the effect that the
revenue collections exceeded the original revenue targets for the years 2011, 2012 and 2013,
including collections arising from sources not considered in the original revenue targets, which
certifications were required for the release of the unprogrammed funds as provided in Special
Provision No. 1 of Article XLV, Article XVI, and Article XLV of the 2011, 2012 and 2013 GAAs; and (2)
A report on releases of savings of the Executive Department for the use of the Constitutional
Commissions and other branches of the Government, as well as the fund releases to the Senate and
the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).

RULING

I.

Procedural Issue:

a) The petitions under Rule 65 are proper remedies

All the petitions are filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and include applications for the
issuance of writs of preliminary prohibitory injunction or temporary restraining orders. More
specifically, the nature of the petitions is individually set forth hereunder, to wit:
 G.R. No. 209135 (Syjuco) Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus
G.R. No. 209136 (Luna) Certiorariand Prohibition
G.R. No. 209155 (Villegas) Certiorariand Prohibition
G.R. No. 209164 (PHILCONSA) Certiorariand Prohibition
G.R. No. 209260 (IBP) Prohibition
G.R. No. 209287 (Araullo) Certiorariand Prohibition
G.R. No. 209442 (Belgica) Certiorari
G.R. No. 209517 (COURAGE) Certiorari and Prohibition
G.R. No. 209569 (VACC) Certiorari and Prohibition

The respondents submit that there is no actual controversy that is ripe for adjudication in the
absence of adverse claims between the parties; that the petitioners lacked legal standing to sue
19

because no allegations were made to the effect that they had suffered any injury as a result of the
adoption of the DAP and issuance of NBC No. 541; that their being taxpayers did not immediately
confer upon the petitioners the legal standing to sue considering that the adoption and
implementation of the DAP and the issuance of NBC No. 541 were not in the exercise of the taxing
or spending power of Congress; and that even if the petitioners had suffered injury, there were
20

plain, speedy and adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law available to them, like assailing
the regularity of the DAP and related issuances before the Commission on Audit (COA) or in the trial
courts.21

The respondents aver that the special civil actions of certiorari and prohibition are not proper actions
for directly assailing the constitutionality and validity of the DAP, NBC No. 541, and the other
executive issuances implementing the DAP. 22

In their memorandum, the respondents further contend that there is no authorized proceeding under
the Constitution and the Rules of Court for questioning the validity of any law unless there is an
actual case or controversy the resolution of which requires the determination of the constitutional
question; that the jurisdiction of the Court is largely appellate; that for a court of law to pass upon the
constitutionality of a law or any act of the Government when there is no case or controversy is for
that court to set itself up as a reviewer of the acts of Congress and of the President in violation of the
principle of separation of powers; and that, in the absence of a pending case or controversy
involving the DAP and NBC No. 541, any decision herein could amount to a mere advisory opinion
that no court can validly render.23

The respondents argue that it is the application of the DAP to actual situations that the petitioners
can question either in the trial courts or in the COA; that if the petitioners are dissatisfied with the
ruling either of the trial courts or of the COA, they can appeal the decision of the trial courts by
petition for review on certiorari, or assail the decision or final order of the COA by special civil action
for certiorari under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court. 24

The respondents’ arguments and submissions on the procedural issue are bereft of merit.

Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution expressly provides:

Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may
be established by law.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.

Thus, the Constitution vests judicial power in the Court and in such lower courts as may be
established by law. In creating a lower court, Congress concomitantly determines the jurisdiction of
that court, and that court, upon its creation, becomes by operation of the Constitution one of the
repositories of judicial power. However, only the Court is a constitutionally created court, the rest
25

being created by Congress in its exercise of the legislative power.

The Constitution states that judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice not only "to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable" but also "to
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government." It has thereby expanded
the concept of judicial power, which up to then was confined to its traditional ambit of settling actual
controversies involving rights that were legally demandable and enforceable.

The background and rationale of the expansion of judicial power under the 1987 Constitution were
laid out during the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission by Commissioner Roberto R.
Concepcion (a former Chief Justice of the Philippines) in his sponsorship of the proposed provisions
on the Judiciary, where he said:–

The Supreme Court, like all other courts, has one main function: to settle actual controversies
involving conflicts of rights which are demandable and enforceable. There are rights which are
guaranteed by law but cannot be enforced by a judicial party. In a decided case, a husband
complained that his wife was unwilling to perform her duties as a wife. The Court said: "We can tell
your wife what her duties as such are and that she is bound to comply with them, but we cannot
force her physically to discharge her main marital duty to her husband. There are some rights
guaranteed by law, but they are so personal that to enforce them by actual compulsion would be
highly derogatory to human dignity." This is why the first part of the second paragraph of Section 1
provides that: Judicial power includes the duty of courts to settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable or enforceable…

The courts, therefore, cannot entertain, much less decide, hypothetical questions. In a presidential
system of government, the Supreme Court has, also, another important function. The powers of
government are generally considered divided into three branches: the Legislative, the Executive and
the Judiciary. Each one is supreme within its own sphere and independent of the others. Because of
that supremacy power to determine whether a given law is valid or not is vested in courts of justice.

Briefly stated, courts of justice determine the limits of power of the agencies and offices of the
government as well as those of its officers. In other words, the judiciary is the final arbiter on the
question whether or not a branch of government or any of its officials has acted without jurisdiction or
in excess of jurisdiction, or so capriciously as to constitute an abuse of discretion amounting to
excess of jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction. This is not only a judicial power but a duty to pass
judgmenton matters of this nature.
This is the background of paragraph 2 of Section 1, which means that the courts cannot hereafter
evade the duty to settle matters of this nature, by claiming that such matters constitute a political
question. (Bold emphasis supplied) 26

Upon interpellation by Commissioner Nolledo, Commissioner Concepcion clarified the scope of

judicial power in the following manner:–

MR. NOLLEDO. x x x

The second paragraph of Section 1 states: "Judicial power includes the duty of courts of justice to
settle actual controversies…" The term "actual controversies" according to the Commissioner should
refer to questions which are political in nature and, therefore, the courts should not refuse to decide
those political questions. But do I understand it right that this is restrictive or only an example? I
know there are cases which are not actual yet the court can assume jurisdiction. An example is the
petition for declaratory relief.

May I ask the Commissioner’s opinion about that?

MR. CONCEPCION. The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to grant declaratory judgments.

MR. NOLLEDO. The Gentleman used the term "judicial power" but judicial power is not vested in the
Supreme Court alone but also in other lower courts as may be created by law.

MR. CONCEPCION. Yes.

MR. NOLLEDO. And so, is this only an example?

MR. CONCEPCION. No, I know this is not. The Gentleman seems to identify political questions with
jurisdictional questions. But there is a difference.

MR. NOLLEDO. Because of the expression "judicial power"?

MR. CONCEPCION. No. Judicial power, as I said, refers to ordinary cases but where there is a
question as to whether the government had authority or had abused its authority to the extent of
lacking jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction, that is not a political question. Therefore, the court has
the duty to decide. 27

Our previous Constitutions equally recognized the extent of the power of judicial review and the
great responsibility of the Judiciary in maintaining the allocation of powers among the three great
branches of Government. Speaking for the Court in Angara v. Electoral Commission, Justice Jose
28

P. Laurel intoned:

x x x In times of social disquietude or political excitement, the great landmarks of the Constitution are
apt to be forgotten or marred, if not entirely obliterated. In cases of conflict, the judicial department is
the only constitutional organ which can be called upon to determine the proper allocation of powers
between the several department and among the integral or constituent units thereof.

xxxx

The Constitution is a definition of the powers of government. Who is to determine the nature, scope
and extent of such powers? The Constitution itself has provided for the instrumentality of the
judiciary as the rational way. And when the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it
does not assert any superiority over the other department; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an
act of the legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the
Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for
the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and guarantees to them.
This is in truth all that is involved in what is termed "judicial supremacy" which properly is the power
of judicial review under the Constitution. x x x29

What are the remedies by which the grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government may be determined under
the Constitution?

The present Rules of Court uses two special civil actions for determining and correcting grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. These are the special civil actions for
certiorari and prohibition, and both are governed by Rule 65. A similar remedy of certiorari exists
under Rule 64, but the remedy is expressly applicable only to the judgments and final orders or
resolutions of the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit.

The ordinary nature and function of the writ of certiorari in our present system are aptly explained in
Delos Santos v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company: 30

In the common law, from which the remedy of certiorari evolved, the writ of certiorari was issued out
of Chancery, or the King’s Bench, commanding agents or officers of the inferior courts to return the
record of a cause pending before them, so as to give the party more sure and speedy justice, for the
writ would enable the superior court to determine from an inspection of the record whether the
inferior court’s judgment was rendered without authority. The errors were of such a nature that, if
allowed to stand, they would result in a substantial injury to the petitioner to whom no other remedy
was available. If the inferior court acted without authority, the record was then revised and corrected
in matters of law. The writ of certiorari was limited to cases in which the inferior court was said to be
exceeding its jurisdiction or was not proceeding according to essential requirements of law and
would lie only to review judicial or quasi-judicial acts.

The concept of the remedy of certiorari in our judicial system remains much the same as it has been
in the common law. In this jurisdiction, however, the exercise of the power to issue the writ of
certiorari is largely regulated by laying down the instances or situations in the Rules of Court in
which a superior court may issue the writ of certiorari to an inferior court or officer. Section 1, Rule 65
of the Rules of Court compellingly provides the requirements for that purpose, viz:

xxxx

The sole office of the writ of certiorari is the correction of errors of jurisdiction, which includes the
commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. In this regard, mere abuse
of discretion is not enough to warrant the issuance of the writ. The abuse of discretion must be
grave, which means either that the judicial or quasi-judicial power was exercised in an arbitrary or
despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, or that the respondent judge, tribunal or
board evaded a positive duty, or virtually refused to perform the duty enjoined or to act in
contemplation of law, such as when such judge, tribunal or board exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
powers acted in a capricious or whimsical manner as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. 31

Although similar to prohibition in that it will lie for want or excess of jurisdiction, certiorari is to be
distinguished from prohibition by the fact that it is a corrective remedy used for the re-examination of
some action of an inferior tribunal, and is directed to the cause or proceeding in the lower court and
not to the court itself, while prohibition is a preventative remedy issuing to restrain future action, and
is directed to the court itself. The Court expounded on the nature and function of the writ of
32

prohibition in Holy Spirit Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Defensor: 33

A petition for prohibition is also not the proper remedy to assail an IRR issued in the exercise of a
quasi-legislative function. Prohibition is an extraordinary writ directed against any tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial
functions, ordering said entity or person to desist from further proceedings when said proceedings
are without or in excess of said entity’s or person’s jurisdiction, or are accompanied with grave abuse
of discretion, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law. Prohibition lies against judicial or ministerial functions, but not against legislative or
quasi-legislative functions. Generally, the purpose of a writ of prohibition is to keep a lower court
within the limits of its jurisdiction in order to maintain the administration of justice in orderly channels.
Prohibition is the proper remedy to afford relief against usurpation of jurisdiction or power by an
inferior court, or when, in the exercise of jurisdiction in handling matters clearly within its cognizance
the inferior court transgresses the bounds prescribed to it by the law, or where there is no adequate
remedy available in the ordinary course of law by which such relief can be obtained. Where the
principal relief sought is to invalidate an IRR, petitioners’ remedy is an ordinary action for its
nullification, an action which properly falls under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. In any
case, petitioners’ allegation that "respondents are performing or threatening to perform functions
without or in excess of their jurisdiction" may appropriately be enjoined by the trial court through a
writ of injunction or a temporary restraining order.

With respect to the Court, however, the remedies of certiorari and prohibition are necessarily broader
in scope and reach, and the writ of certiorari or prohibition may be issued to correct errors of
jurisdiction committed not only by a tribunal, corporation, board or officer exercising judicial, quasi-
judicial or ministerial functions but also to set right, undo and restrain any act of grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by any branch or instrumentality of the
Government, even if the latter does not exercise judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions. This
application is expressly authorized by the text of the second paragraph of Section 1, supra.

Thus, petitions for certiorari and prohibition are appropriate remedies to raise constitutional issues
and to review and/or prohibit or nullify the acts of legislative and executive officials.34

Necessarily, in discharging its duty under Section 1, supra, to set right and undo any act of grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by any branch or instrumentality of the
Government, the Court is not at all precluded from making the inquiry provided the challenge was
properly brought by interested or affected parties. The Court has been thereby entrusted expressly
or by necessary implication with both the duty and the obligation of determining, in appropriate
cases, the validity of any assailed legislative or executive action. This entrustment is consistent with
the republican system of checks and balances. 35

Following our recent dispositions concerning the congressional pork barrel, the Court has become
more alert to discharge its constitutional duty. We will not now refrain from exercising our expanded
judicial power in order to review and determine, with authority, the limitations on the Chief
Executive’s spending power.

b) Requisites for the exercise of the

power of judicial review were
complied with
The requisites for the exercise of the power of judicial review are the following, namely: (1) there
must bean actual case or justiciable controversy before the Court; (2) the question before the Court
must be ripe for adjudication; (3) the person challenging the act must be a proper party; and (4) the
issue of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity and must be the very litis mota of
the case.36

The first requisite demands that there be an actual case calling for the exercise of judicial power by
the Court. An actual case or controversy, in the words of Belgica v. Executive Secretary Ochoa:
37 38

x x x is one which involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims, susceptible
of judicial resolution as distinguished from a hypothetical or abstract difference or dispute. In other
words, "[t]here must be a contrariety of legal rights that can be interpreted and enforced on the basis
of existing law and jurisprudence." Related to the requirement of an actual case or controversy is the
requirement of "ripeness," meaning that the questions raised for constitutional scrutiny are already
ripe for adjudication. "A question is ripe for adjudication when the act being challenged has had a
direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it. It is a prerequisite that something had then
been accomplished or performed by either branch before a court may come into the picture, and the
petitioner must allege the existence of an immediate or threatened injury to itself as a result of the
challenged action." "Withal, courts will decline to pass upon constitutional issues through advisory
opinions, bereft as they are of authority to resolve hypothetical or moot questions."

An actual and justiciable controversy exists in these consolidated cases. The incompatibility of the
perspectives of the parties on the constitutionality of the DAP and its relevant issuances satisfy the
requirement for a conflict between legal rights. The issues being raised herein meet the requisite
ripeness considering that the challenged executive acts were already being implemented by the
DBM, and there are averments by the petitioners that such implementation was repugnant to the
letter and spirit of the Constitution. Moreover, the implementation of the DAP entailed the allocation
and expenditure of huge sums of public funds. The fact that public funds have been allocated,
disbursed or utilized by reason or on account of such challenged executive acts gave rise, therefore,
to an actual controversy that is ripe for adjudication by the Court.

It is true that Sec. Abad manifested during the January 28, 2014 oral arguments that the DAP as a
program had been meanwhile discontinued because it had fully served its purpose, saying: "In
conclusion, Your Honors, may I inform the Court that because the DAP has already fully served its
purpose, the Administration’s economic managers have recommended its termination to the
President. x x x."
39

The Solicitor General then quickly confirmed the termination of the DAP as a program, and urged
that its termination had already mooted the challenges to the DAP’s constitutionality, viz:

DAP as a program, no longer exists, thereby mooting these present cases brought to challenge its
constitutionality. Any constitutional challenge should no longer be at the level of the program, which
is now extinct, but at the level of its prior applications or the specific disbursements under the now
defunct policy. We challenge the petitioners to pick and choose which among the 116 DAP projects
they wish to nullify, the full details we will have provided by February 5. We urge this Court to be
cautious in limiting the constitutional authority of the President and the Legislature to respond to the
dynamic needs of the country and the evolving demands of governance, lest we end up straight
jacketing our elected representatives in ways not consistent with our constitutional structure and
democratic principles. 40

A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of
supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. 41
The Court cannot agree that the termination of the DAP as a program was a supervening event that
effectively mooted these consolidated cases. Verily, the Court had in the past exercised its power of
judicial review despite the cases being rendered moot and academic by supervening events, like: (1)
when there was a grave violation of the Constitution; (2) when the case involved a situation of
exceptional character and was of paramount public interest; (3) when the constitutional issue raised
required the formulation of controlling principles to guide the Bench, the Bar and the public; and (4)
when the case was capable of repetition yet evading review. 42

Assuming that the petitioners’ several submissions against the DAP were ultimately sustained by the
Court here, these cases would definitely come under all the exceptions. Hence, the Court should not
abstain from exercising its power of judicial review.

Did the petitioners have the legal standing to sue?

Legal standing, as a requisite for the exercise of judicial review, refers to "a right of appearance in a
court of justice on a given question." The concept of legal standing, or locus standi, was particularly
43

discussed in De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council, where the Court said:
44

In public or constitutional litigations, the Court is often burdened with the determination of the locus
standi of the petitioners due to the ever-present need to regulate the invocation of the intervention of
the Court to correct any official action or policy in order to avoid obstructing the efficient functioning
of public officials and offices involved in public service. It is required, therefore, that the petitioner
must have a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy, for, as indicated in Agan, Jr. v.
Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc.:

The question on legal standing is whether such parties have "alleged such a personal stake in the
outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation
of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional
questions." Accordingly, it has been held that the interest of a person assailing the constitutionality of
a statute must be direct and personal. He must be able to show, not only that the law or any
government act is invalid, but also that he sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining some
direct injury as a result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers thereby in some indefinite
way. It must appear that the person complaining has been or is about to be denied some right or
privilege to which he is lawfully entitled or that he is about to be subjected to some burdens or
penalties by reason of the statute or act complained of.

It is true that as early as in 1937, in People v. Vera, the Court adopted the direct injury test for
determining whether a petitioner in a public action had locus standi. There, the Court held that the
person who would assail the validity of a statute must have "a personal and substantial interest in
the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a result." Vera was followed in
Custodio v. President of the Senate, Manila Race Horse Trainers’ Association v. De la Fuente, Anti-
Chinese League of the Philippines v. Felix, and Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works.

Yet, the Court has also held that the requirement of locus standi, being a mere procedural
technicality, can be waived by the Court in the exercise of its discretion. For instance, in 1949, in
Araneta v. Dinglasan, the Court liberalized the approach when the cases had "transcendental
importance." Some notable controversies whose petitioners did not pass the direct injury test were
allowed to be treated in the same way as in Araneta v. Dinglasan.

In the 1975 decision in Aquino v. Commission on Elections, this Court decided to resolve the issues
raised by the petition due to their "far reaching implications," even if the petitioner had no personality
to file the suit. The liberal approach of Aquino v. Commission on Elections has been adopted in
several notable cases, permitting ordinary citizens, legislators, and civic organizations to bring their
suits involving the constitutionality or validity of laws, regulations, and rulings.

However, the assertion of a public right as a predicate for challenging a supposedly illegal or
unconstitutional executive or legislative action rests on the theory that the petitioner represents the
public in general. Although such petitioner may not be as adversely affected by the action
complained against as are others, it is enough that he sufficiently demonstrates in his petition that he
is entitled to protection or relief from the Court in the vindication of a public right.

Quite often, as here, the petitioner in a public action sues as a citizen or taxpayer to gain locus
standi. That is not surprising, for even if the issue may appear to concern only the public in general,
such capacities nonetheless equip the petitioner with adequate interest to sue. In David v.
Macapagal-Arroyo, the Court aptly explains why:

Case law in most jurisdiction snow allows both "citizen" and "taxpayer" standing in public actions.
The distinction was first laid down in Beauchamp v. Silk, where it was held that the plaintiff in a
taxpayer’s suit is in a different category from the plaintiff in a citizen’s suit. In the former, the plaintiff
is affected by the expenditure of public funds, while in the latter, he is but the mere instrument of the
public concern. As held by the New York Supreme Court in People ex rel Case v. Collins: "In matter
of mere public right, however…the people are the real parties…It is at least the right, if not the duty,
of every citizen to interfere and see that a public offence be properly pursued and punished, and that
a public grievance be remedied." With respect to taxpayer’s suits, Terr v. Jordan held that "the right
of a citizen and a taxpayer to maintain an action in courts to restrain the unlawful use of public funds
to his injury cannot be denied." 45

The Court has cogently observed in Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. that 46

"[s]tanding is a peculiar concept in constitutional law because in some cases, suits are not brought
by parties who have been personally injured by the operation of a law or any other government act
but by concerned citizens, taxpayers or voters who actually sue in the public interest."

Except for PHILCONSA, a petitioner in G.R. No. 209164, the petitioners have invoked their
capacities as taxpayers who, by averring that the issuance and implementation of the DAP and its
relevant issuances involved the illegal disbursements of public funds, have an interest in preventing
the further dissipation of public funds. The petitioners in G.R. No. 209287 (Araullo) and G.R. No.
209442 (Belgica) also assert their right as citizens to sue for the enforcement and observance of the
constitutional limitations on the political branches of the Government. 47

On its part, PHILCONSA simply reminds that the Court has long recognized its legal standing to
bring cases upon constitutional issues. Luna, the petitioner in G.R. No. 209136, cites his additional
48

capacity as a lawyer. The IBP, the petitioner in G.R. No. 209260, stands by "its avowed duty to work
for the rule of law and of paramount importance of the question in this action, not to mention its civic
duty as the official association of all lawyers in this country."49

Under their respective circumstances, each of the petitioners has established sufficient interest in the
outcome of the controversy as to confer locus standi on each of them.

In addition, considering that the issues center on the extent of the power of the Chief Executive to
disburse and allocate public funds, whether appropriated by Congress or not, these cases pose
issues that are of transcendental importance to the entire Nation, the petitioners included. As such,
the determination of such important issues call for the Court’s exercise of its broad and wise
discretion "to waive the requirement and so remove the impediment to its addressing and resolving
the serious constitutional questions raised." 50
 II.
Substantive Issues

1.
Overview of the Budget System

An understanding of the Budget System of the Philippines will aid the Court in properly appreciating
and justly resolving the substantive issues.

a) Origin of the Budget System

The term "budget" originated from the Middle English word bouget that had derived from the Latin
word bulga (which means bag or purse). 51

In the Philippine setting, Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 246 (Budget Act) defined "budget" as the
financial program of the National Government for a designated fiscal year, consisting of the
statements of estimated receipts and expenditures for the fiscal year for which it was intended to be
effective based on the results of operations during the preceding fiscal years. The term was given a
different meaning under Republic Act No. 992 (Revised Budget Act) by describing the budget as the
delineation of the services and products, or benefits that would accrue to the public together with the
estimated unit cost of each type of service, product or benefit. For a forthright definition, budget
52

should simply be identified as the financial plan of the Government, or "the master plan of
53

government." 54

The concept of budgeting has not been the product of recent economies. In reality, financing public
goals and activities was an idea that existed from the creation of the State. To protect the people,
55

the territory and sovereignty of the State, its government must perform vital functions that required
public expenditures. At the beginning, enormous public expenditures were spent for war activities,
preservation of peace and order, security, administration of justice, religion, and supply of limited
goods and services. In order to finance those expenditures, the State raised revenues through
56

taxes and impositions. Thus, budgeting became necessary to allocate public revenues for specific
57

government functions. The State’s budgeting mechanism eventually developed through the years
58

with the growing functions of its government and changes in its market economy.

The Philippine Budget System has been greatly influenced by western public financial institutions.
This is because of the country’s past as a colony successively of Spain and the United States for a
long period of time. Many aspects of the country’s public fiscal administration, including its Budget
System, have been naturally patterned after the practices and experiences of the western public
financial institutions. At any rate, the Philippine Budget System is presently guided by two principal
objectives that are vital to the development of a progressive democratic government, namely: (1) to
carry on all government activities under a comprehensive fiscal plan developed, authorized and
executed in accordance with the Constitution, prevailing statutes and the principles of sound public
management; and (2) to provide for the periodic review and disclosure of the budgetary status of the
Government in such detail so that persons entrusted by law with the responsibility as well as the
enlightened citizenry can determine the adequacy of the budget actions taken, authorized or
proposed, as well as the true financial position of the Government. 59

b) Evolution of the Philippine Budget System

The budget process in the Philippines evolved from the early years of the American Regime up to
the passage of the Jones Law in 1916. A Budget Office was created within the Department of
Finance by the Jones Law to discharge the budgeting function, and was given the responsibility to
assist in the preparation of an executive budget for submission to the Philippine Legislature.
60

As early as under the 1935 Constitution, a budget policy and a budget procedure were established,
and subsequently strengthened through the enactment of laws and executive acts. EO No. 25,
61

issued by President Manuel L. Quezon on April 25, 1936, created the Budget Commission to serve
as the agency that carried out the President’s responsibility of preparing the budget. CA No. 246,
62

the first budget law, went into effect on January 1, 1938 and established the Philippine budget
process. The law also provided a line-item budget as the framework of the Government’s budgeting
system, with emphasis on the observance of a "balanced budget" to tie up proposed expenditures
63

with existing revenues.

CA No. 246 governed the budget process until the passage on June 4, 1954 of Republic Act (RA)
No. 992,whereby Congress introduced performance-budgeting to give importance to functions,
projects and activities in terms of expected results. RA No. 992 also enhanced the role of the
64

Budget Commission as the fiscal arm of the Government. 65

The 1973 Constitution and various presidential decrees directed a series of budgetary reforms that
culminated in the enactment of PD No. 1177 that President Marcos issued on July30, 1977, and of
PD No. 1405, issued on June 11, 1978. The latter decree converted the Budget Commission into the
Ministry of Budget, and gave its head the rank of a Cabinet member.

The Ministry of Budget was later renamed the Office of Budget and Management (OBM) under EO
No. 711. The OBM became the DBM pursuant to EO No. 292 effective on November 24, 1989.

c) The Philippine Budget Cycle 66

Four phases comprise the Philippine budget process, specifically: (1) Budget Preparation; (2)
Budget Legislation; (3) Budget Execution; and (4) Accountability. Each phase is distinctly separate
from the others but they overlap in the implementation of the budget during the budget year.

c.1.Budget Preparation 67

The budget preparation phase is commenced through the issuance of a Budget Call by the DBM.
The Budget Call contains budget parameters earlier set by the Development Budget Coordination
Committee (DBCC) as well as policy guidelines and procedures to aid government agencies in the
preparation and submission of their budget proposals. The Budget Call is of two kinds, namely: (1) a
National Budget Call, which is addressed to all agencies, including state universities and colleges;
and (2) a Corporate Budget Call, which is addressed to all government-owned and -controlled
corporations (GOCCs) and government financial institutions (GFIs).

Following the issuance of the Budget Call, the various departments and agencies submit their
respective Agency Budget Proposals to the DBM. To boost citizen participation, the current
administration has tasked the various departments and agencies to partner with civil society
organizations and other citizen-stakeholders in the preparation of the Agency Budget Proposals,
which proposals are then presented before a technical panel of the DBM in scheduled budget
hearings wherein the various departments and agencies are given the opportunity to defend their
budget proposals. DBM bureaus thereafter review the Agency Budget Proposals and come up with
recommendations for the Executive Review Board, comprised by the DBM Secretary and the DBM’s
senior officials. The discussions of the Executive Review Board cover the prioritization of programs
and their corresponding support vis-à-vis the priority agenda of the National Government, and their
implementation.
The DBM next consolidates the recommended agency budgets into the National Expenditure
Program (NEP)and a Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing (BESF). The NEP provides
the details of spending for each department and agency by program, activity or project (PAP), and is
submitted in the form of a proposed GAA. The Details of Selected Programs and Projects is the
more detailed disaggregation of key PAPs in the NEP, especially those in line with the National
Government’s development plan. The Staffing Summary provides the staffing complement of each
department and agency, including the number of positions and amounts allocated.

The NEP and BESF are thereafter presented by the DBM and the DBCC to the President and the
Cabinet for further refinements or reprioritization. Once the NEP and the BESF are approved by the
President and the Cabinet, the DBM prepares the budget documents for submission to Congress.
The budget documents consist of: (1) the President’s Budget Message, through which the President
explains the policy framework and budget priorities; (2) the BESF, mandated by Section 22, Article
VII of the Constitution, which contains the macroeconomic assumptions, public sector context,
68

breakdown of the expenditures and funding sources for the fiscal year and the two previous years;
and (3) the NEP.

Public or government expenditures are generally classified into two categories, specifically: (1)
capital expenditures or outlays; and (2) current operating expenditures. Capital expenditures are the
expenses whose usefulness lasts for more than one year, and which add to the assets of the
Government, including investments in the capital of government-owned or controlled corporations
and their subsidiaries. Current operating expenditures are the purchases of goods and services in
69

current consumption the benefit of which does not extend beyond the fiscal year. The two 70

components of current expenditures are those for personal services (PS), and those for
maintenance and other operating expenses(MOOE).

Public expenditures are also broadly grouped according to their functions into: (1) economic
development expenditures (i.e., expenditures on agriculture and natural resources, transportation
and communications, commerce and industry, and other economic development efforts); (2) social 71

services or social development expenditures (i.e., government outlay on education, public health and
medicare, labor and welfare and others); (3) general government or general public services
72

expenditures (i.e., expenditures for the general government, legislative services, the administration
of justice, and for pensions and gratuities); (4) national defense expenditures (i.e., sub-divided into
73

national security expenditures and expenditures for the maintenance of peace and order); and (5) 74

public debt.75

Public expenditures may further be classified according to the nature of funds, i.e., general fund,
special fund or bond fund. 76

On the other hand, public revenues complement public expenditures and cover all income or
receipts of the government treasury used to support government expenditures. 77

Classical economist Adam Smith categorized public revenues based on two principal sources,
stating: "The revenue which must defray…the necessary expenses of government may be drawn
either, first from some fund which peculiarly belongs to the sovereign or commonwealth, and which
is independent of the revenue of the people, or, secondly, from the revenue of the people." Adam 78

Smith’s classification relied on the two aspects of the nature of the State: first, the State as a juristic
person with an artificial personality, and, second, the State as a sovereign or entity possessing
supreme power. Under the first aspect, the State could hold property and engage in trade, thereby
deriving what is called its quasi private income or revenues, and which "peculiarly belonged to the
sovereign." Under the second aspect, the State could collect by imposing charges on the revenues
of its subjects in the form of taxes.
79
 In the Philippines, public revenues are generally derived from the following sources, to wit: (1) tax
revenues(i.e., compulsory contributions to finance government activities); 80 (2) capital
revenues(i.e., proceeds from sales of fixed capital assets or scrap thereof and public domain, and
gains on such sales like sale of public lands, buildings and other structures, equipment, and other
properties recorded as fixed assets); 81 (3) grants(i.e., voluntary contributions and aids given to the
Government for its operation on specific purposes in the form of money and/or materials, and do not
require any monetary commitment on the part of the recipient); (4) extraordinary income(i.e.,
82

repayment of loans and advances made by government corporations and local governments and the
receipts and shares in income of the Banko Sentral ng Pilipinas, and other receipts); and (5) public
83

borrowings(i.e., proceeds of repayable obligations generally with interest from domestic and foreign
creditors of the Government in general, including the National Government and its political
subdivisions).84

More specifically, public revenues are classified as follows: 85

General Income Specific Income

1. Subsidy Income from National 1. Income Taxes
Government 2. Property Taxes
2. Subsidy from Central Office 3. Taxes on Goods and Services
3. Subsidy from Regional 4. Taxes on International Trade and
Office/Staff Bureaus Transactions
4. Income from Government 5. Other Taxes 6.Fines and Penalties-Tax Revenue
Services
7. Other Specific Income
5. Income from Government
Business Operations
6. Sales Revenue
7. Rent Income
8. Insurance Income
9. Dividend Income
10. Interest Income
11. Sale of Confiscated Goods and
Properties
12. Foreign Exchange (FOREX)
Gains
13. Miscellaneous Operating and
Service Income
14. Fines and Penalties-Government
Services and Business Operations
15. Income from Grants and
Donations

c.2. Budget Legislation 86

The Budget Legislation Phase covers the period commencing from the time Congress receives the
President’s Budget, which is inclusive of the NEPand the BESF, up to the President’s approval of the
GAA. This phase is also known as the Budget Authorization Phase, and involves the significant
participation of the Legislative through its deliberations.

Initially, the President’s Budget is assigned to the House of Representatives’ Appropriations

Committee on First Reading. The Appropriations Committee and its various Sub-Committees
schedule and conduct budget hearings to examine the PAPs of the departments and agencies.
Thereafter, the House of Representatives drafts the General Appropriations Bill (GAB). 87

The GABis sponsored, presented and defended by the House of Representatives’ Appropriations
Committee and Sub-Committees in plenary session. As with other laws, the GAB is approved on
Third Reading before the House of Representatives’ version is transmitted to the Senate. 88

After transmission, the Senate conducts its own committee hearings on the GAB. To expedite
proceedings, the Senate may conduct its committee hearings simultaneously with the House of
Representatives’ deliberations. The Senate’s Finance Committee and its Sub-Committees may
submit the proposed amendments to the GAB to the plenary of the Senate only after the House of
Representatives has formally transmitted its version to the Senate. The Senate version of the GAB is
likewise approved on Third Reading. 89

The House of Representatives and the Senate then constitute a panel each to sit in the Bicameral
Conference Committee for the purpose of discussing and harmonizing the conflicting provisions of
their versions of the GAB. The "harmonized" version of the GAB is next presented to the President
for approval. The President reviews the GAB, and prepares the Veto Message where budget items
90

are subjected to direct veto, or are identified for conditional implementation.

91

If, by the end of any fiscal year, the Congress shall have failed to pass the GAB for the ensuing fiscal
year, the GAA for the preceding fiscal year shall be deemed re-enacted and shall remain in force and
effect until the GAB is passed by the Congress. 92

c.3. Budget Execution 93

With the GAA now in full force and effect, the next step is the implementation of the budget. The
Budget Execution Phase is primarily the function of the DBM, which is tasked to perform the
following procedures, namely: (1) to issue the programs and guidelines for the release of funds; (2)
to prepare an Allotment and Cash Release Program; (3) to release allotments; and (4) to issue
disbursement authorities.

The implementation of the GAA is directed by the guidelines issued by the DBM. Prior to this, the
various departments and agencies are required to submit Budget Execution Documents(BED) to
outline their plans and performance targets by laying down the physical and financial plan, the
monthly cash program, the estimate of monthly income, and the list of obligations that are not yet
due and demandable.

Thereafter, the DBM prepares an Allotment Release Program (ARP)and a Cash Release Program
(CRP).The ARP sets a limit for allotments issued in general and to a specific agency. The CRP fixes
the monthly, quarterly and annual disbursement levels.

Allotments, which authorize an agency to enter into obligations, are issued by the DBM. Allotments
are lesser in scope than appropriations, in that the latter embrace the general legislative authority to
spend. Allotments may be released in two forms – through a comprehensive Agency Budget Matrix
(ABM), or, individually, by SARO.
94 95
Armed with either the ABM or the SARO, agencies become authorized to incur obligations on 96

behalf of the Government in order to implement their PAPs. Obligations may be incurred in various
ways, like hiring of personnel, entering into contracts for the supply of goods and services, and using
utilities.

In order to settle the obligations incurred by the agencies, the DBM issues a disbursement authority
so that cash may be allocated in payment of the obligations. A cash or disbursement authority that is
periodically issued is referred to as a Notice of Cash Allocation (NCA), which issuance is based
97

upon an agency’s submission of its Monthly Cash Program and other required documents. The NCA
specifies the maximum amount of cash that can be withdrawn from a government servicing bank for
the period indicated. Apart from the NCA, the DBM may issue a Non-Cash Availment
Authority(NCAA) to authorize non-cash disbursements, or a Cash Disbursement Ceiling(CDC) for
departments with overseas operations to allow the use of income collected by their foreign posts for
their operating requirements.

Actual disbursement or spending of government funds terminates the Budget Execution Phase and
is usually accomplished through the Modified Disbursement Scheme under which disbursements
chargeable against the National Treasury are coursed through the government servicing banks.

c.4. Accountability 98

Accountability is a significant phase of the budget cycle because it ensures that the government
funds have been effectively and efficiently utilized to achieve the State’s socio-economic goals. It
also allows the DBM to assess the performance of agencies during the fiscal year for the purpose of
implementing reforms and establishing new policies.

An agency’s accountability may be examined and evaluated through (1) performance targets and
outcomes; (2) budget accountability reports; (3) review of agency performance; and (4) audit
conducted by the Commission on Audit(COA).

2.

Nature of the DAP as a fiscal plan

a. DAP was a program designed to

promote economic growth

Policy is always a part of every budget and fiscal decision of any Administration. The national
99

budget the Executive prepares and presents to Congress represents the Administration’s "blueprint
for public policy" and reflects the Government’s goals and strategies. As such, the national budget
100

becomes a tangible representation of the programs of the Government in monetary terms, specifying
therein the PAPs and services for which specific amounts of public funds are proposed and
allocated. Embodied in every national budget is government spending.
101 102

When he assumed office in the middle of 2010, President Aquino made efficiency and transparency
in government spending a significant focus of his Administration. Yet, although such focus resulted in
an improved fiscal deficit of 0.5% in the gross domestic product (GDP) from January to July of 2011,
it also unfortunately decelerated government project implementation and payment schedules. The 103

World Bank observed that the Philippines’ economic growth could be reduced, and potential growth
could be weakened should the Government continue with its underspending and fail to address the
large deficiencies in infrastructure. The economic situation prevailing in the middle of 2011 thus
104
paved the way for the development and implementation of the DAP as a stimulus package intended
to fast-track public spending and to push economic growth by investing on high-impact budgetary
PAPs to be funded from the "savings" generated during the year as well as from unprogrammed
funds. In that respect, the DAP was the product of "plain executive policy-making" to stimulate the
105

economy by way of accelerated spending. The Administration would thereby accelerate government
106

spending by: (1) streamlining the implementation process through the clustering of infrastructure
projects of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and the Department of Education
(DepEd),and (2) front loading PPP-related projects due for implementation in the following year.
107 108

Did the stimulus package work?

The March 2012 report of the World Bank, released after the initial implementation of the DAP,
109

revealed that the DAP was partially successful. The disbursements under the DAP contributed 1.3
percentage points to GDP growth by the fourth quarter of 2011. The continued implementation of
110

the DAP strengthened growth by 11.8% year on year while infrastructure spending rebounded from a
29% contraction to a 34% growth as of September 2013. 111

The DAP thus proved to be a demonstration that expenditure was a policy instrument that the
Government could use to direct the economies towards growth and development. The 112

Government, by spending on public infrastructure, would signify its commitment of ensuring

profitability for prospective investors. The PAPs funded under the DAP were chosen for this reason
113

based on their: (1) multiplier impact on the economy and infrastructure development; (2) beneficial
effect on the poor; and (3) translation into disbursements.114

b. History of the implementation of

the DAP, and sources of funds
under the DAP

How the Administration’s economic managers conceptualized and developed the DAP, and finally
presented it to the President remains unknown because the relevant documents appear to be
scarce.

The earliest available document relating to the genesis of the DAP was the memorandum of October
12,2011 from Sec. Abad seeking the approval of the President to implement the proposed DAP. The
memorandum, which contained a list of the funding sources for ₱72.11 billion and of the proposed
priority projects to be funded, reads:
115

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT

xxxx

SUBJECT: FY 2011 PROPOSED DISBURSEMENT ACCELERATION PROGRAM (PROJECTS AND

SOURCES OF FUNDS)

DATE: OCTOBER 12, 2011

Mr. President, this is to formally confirm your approval of the Disbursement Acceleration Program
totaling ₱72.11 billion. We are already working with all the agencies concerned for the immediate
execution of the projects therein.

A. Fund Sources for the Acceleration Program

 Amount
Action
Fund Sources (In million Description
Requested
Php)

FY 2011 30,000 Unreleased Personnel Declare as

Unreleased Services (PS) savings and
Personal appropriations which approve/
Services (PS) will lapse at the end of authorize its use
Appropriations FY 2011 but may be for the 2011
pooled as savings and Disbursement
realigned for priority Acceleration
programs that require Program
immediate funding

FY 2011 482 Unreleased

Unreleased appropriations (slow
Appropriations moving projects and
programs for
discontinuance)

FY 2010 12,336 Supported by the GFI Approve and

Unprogrammed Dividends authorize its use
Fund for the 2011
Disbursement
Acceleration
Program

FY 2010 21,544 Unreleased With prior

Carryover appropriations (slow approval from
Appropriation moving projects and the President in
programs for November 2010
discontinuance) and to declare as
savings from Zero-based Budgeting savings and with
Initiative authority to use
for priority
projects

FY 2011 Budget 7,748 FY 2011 Agency For information

items for Budget items that can
realignment be realigned within the
agency to fund new fast
disbursing projects
DPWH-3.981 Billion
DA – 2.497 Billion
DOT – 1.000 Billion
DepEd – 270 Million

TOTAL 72.110

B. Projects in the Disbursement Acceleration Program

(Descriptions of projects attached as Annex A)

 GOCCs and GFIs

Agency/Project Allotment
(SARO and NCA Release) (in Million Php)

1. LRTA: Rehabilitation of LRT 1 and 2 1,868

2. NHA: 11,050

a. Resettlement of North Triangle residents to 450

Camarin A7
b. Housing for BFP/BJMP 500
c. On-site development for families living 10,000
along dangerous
d. Relocation sites for informal settlers 100
along Iloilo River and its tributaries

3. PHIL. HEART CENTER: Upgrading of 357

ageing physical plant and medical equipment

75
4. CREDIT INFO CORP: Establishment of
centralized credit information system

100
5. PIDS: purchase of land to relocate the PIDS
office and building construction

400
6. HGC: Equity infusion for credit insurance
and mortgage guaranty operations of HGC

7. PHIC: Obligations incurred (premium 1,496

subsidy for indigent families) in January-June
2010, booked for payment in Jul[y] – Dec
2010. The delay in payment is due to the
delay in the certification of the LGU
counterpart. Without it, the NG is obliged to
pay the full amount.

8. Philpost: Purchase of foreclosed property. 644

Payment of Mandatory Obligations, (GSIS,
PhilHealth, ECC), Franking Privilege

10,000
9. BSP: First equity infusion out of Php 40B
capitalization under the BSP Law

280
10. PCMC: Capital and Equipment Renovation
11. LCOP: 105
a. Pediatric Pulmonary Program
b. Bio-regenerative Technology Program 35
(Stem-Cell Research – subject to legal
70
review and presentation)

570
12. TIDCORP: NG Equity infusion

TOTAL 26,945

NGAs/LGUs

Agency/Project Allotment
(SARO) Cash
(In Million Requirement
Php) (NCA)

13. DOF-BIR: NPSTAR

centralization of data
processing and others (To be
synchronized with GFMIS
activities) 758 758

14. COA: IT infrastructure

program and hiring of
additional litigational experts 144 144

15. DND-PAF: On Base Housing

Facilities and Communication
Equipment 30 30

16. DA: 2,959 2,223

a. Irrigation, FMRs and
Integrated Community Based Multi-Species
Hatchery and Aquasilvi
Farming 1,629 1,629
b. Mindanao Rural
Development Project 919 183

c. NIA Agno River Integrated

Irrigation Project 411 411

17. DAR: 1,293 1,293

a. Agrarian Reform
Communities Project 2 1,293 132
b. Landowners Compensation 5,432
18. DBM: Conduct of National
Survey of
Farmers/Fisherfolks/Ips 625 625

19. DOJ: Operating requirements

of 50 investigation agents and
15 state attorneys 11 11

20. DOT: Preservation of the Cine

Corregidor Complex 25 25

21. OPAPP: Activities for Peace

Process (PAMANA- Project
details: budget breakdown,
implementation plan, and
conditions on fund release
attached as Annex B) 1,819 1,819

22. DOST 425 425

a. Establishment of National
Meterological and Climate
Center 275 275
b. Enhancement of Doppler
Radar Network for National
Weather Watch, Accurate
Forecasting and Flood Early
Warning 190 190

23. DOF-BOC: To settle the

principal obligations with
PDIC consistent with the
agreement with the CISS and
SGS 2,800 2,800

24. OEO-FDCP: Establishment of

the National Film Archive and
local cinematheques, and other
local activities 20 20

25. DPWH: Various infrastructure

projects 5,500 5,500

26. DepEd/ERDT/DOST: Thin

Client Cloud Computing
Project 270 270

27. DOH: Hiring of nurses and

midwives 294 294

28. TESDA: Training Program in

partnership with BPO industry
and other sectors 1,100 1,100

29. DILG: Performance Challenge

Fund (People Empowered
 Community Driven
Development with DSWD and
NAPC) 250 50

30. ARMM: Comprehensive Peace

and Development Intervention 8,592 8,592

31. DOTC-MRT: Purchase of

additional MRT cars 4,500 -

32. LGU Support Fund 6,500 6,500

33. Various Other Local Projects 6,500 6,500

34. Development Assistance to the

Province of Quezon 750 750

TOTAL 45,165 44,000

C. Summary

Fund Sources
Identified for Allotments Cash
Approval for Release Requirements for
(In Million Release in FY
Php) 2011

Total 72,110 72,110 70,895

GOCCs 26,895 26,895

NGAs/LGUs 45,165 44,000

For His Excellency’s Consideration

(Sgd.) FLORENCIO B. ABAD

[/] APPROVED

[ ] DISAPPROVED

(Sgd.) H.E. BENIGNO S. AQUINO, III

OCT 12, 2011

The memorandum of October 12, 2011 was followed by another memorandum for the President
dated December 12, 2011 requesting omnibus authority to consolidate the savings and unutilized
116

balances for fiscal year 2011. Pertinent portions of the memorandum of December 12, 2011 read:

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT

xxxx
SUBJECT: Omnibus Authority to Consolidate Savings/Unutilized Balances and its Realignment

DATE: December 12, 2011

This is to respectfully request for the grant of Omnibus Authority to consolidate savings/unutilized
balances in FY 2011 corresponding to completed or discontinued projects which may be pooled to
fund additional projects or expenditures.

In addition, Mr. President, this measure will allow us to undertake projects even if their
implementation carries over to 2012 without necessarily impacting on our budget deficit cap next
year.

BACKGROUND

1.0 The DBM, during the course of performance reviews conducted on the agencies’
operations, particularly on the implementation of their projects/activities, including
expenses incurred in undertaking the same, have identified savings out of the 2011
General Appropriations Act. Said savings correspond to completed or discontinued
projects under certain departments/agencies which may be pooled, for the following:

1.1 to provide for new activities which have not been anticipated during
preparation of the budget;

1.2 to augment additional requirements of on-going priority projects; and

1.3 to provide for deficiencies under the Special Purpose Funds, e.g., PDAF,
Calamity Fund, Contingent Fund

1.4 to cover for the modifications of the original allotment class allocation as
a result of on-going priority projects and implementation of new activities

2.0 x x x x

2.1 x x x

2.2 x x x

ON THE UTILIZATION OF POOLED SAVINGS

3.0 It may be recalled that the President approved our request for omnibus authority
to pool savings/unutilized balances in FY 2010 last November 25, 2010.

4.0 It is understood that in the utilization of the pooled savings, the DBM shall secure
the corresponding approval/confirmation of the President. Furthermore, it is assured
that the proposed realignments shall be within the authorized Expenditure level.

5.0 Relative thereto, we have identified some expenditure items that may be sourced
from the said pooled appropriations in FY 2010 that will expire on December 31,
2011 and appropriations in FY 2011 that may be declared as savings to fund
additional expenditures.
 5.1 The 2010 Continuing Appropriations (pooled savings) is proposed to be
spent for the projects that we have identified to be immediate actual
disbursements considering that this same fund source will expire on
December 31, 2011.

5.2 With respect to the proposed expenditure items to be funded from the FY
2011 Unreleased Appropriations, most of these are the same projects for
which the DBM is directed by the Office of the President, thru the Executive
Secretary, to source funds.

6.0 Among others, the following are such proposed additional projects that have
been chosen given their multiplier impact on economy and infrastructure
development, their beneficial effect on the poor, and their translation into
disbursements. Please note that we have classified the list of proposed projects as
follows:

7.0 x x x

FOR THE PRESIDENT’S APPROVAL

8.0 Foregoing considered, may we respectfully request for the President’s approval
for the following:

8.1 Grant of omnibus authority to consolidate FY 2011 savings/unutilized

balances and its realignment; and

8.2 The proposed additional projects identified for funding.

For His Excellency’s consideration and approval.

(Sgd.)

[/] APPROVED

[ ] DISAPPROVED

(Sgd.) H.E. BENIGNO S. AQUINO, III

DEC 21, 2011

Substantially identical requests for authority to pool savings and to fund proposed projects were
contained in various other memoranda from Sec. Abad dated June 25, 2012, September 4,
117

2012, December 19, 2012, May 20, 2013, and September 25, 2013. The President apparently
118 119 120 121

approved all the requests, withholding approval only of the proposed projects contained in the June
25, 2012 memorandum, as borne out by his marginal note therein to the effect that the proposed
projects should still be "subject to further discussions."
122

In order to implement the June25, 2012 memorandum, Sec. Abad issued NBC No. 541 (Adoption of
Operational Efficiency Measure – Withdrawal of Agencies’ Unobligated Allotments as of June 30,
2012), reproduced herein as follows:
123
NATIONAL BUDGET CIRCULAR No. 541

July 18, 2012

TO: All Heads of Departments/Agencies/State Universities and Colleges and other Offices of the
National Government, Budget and Planning Officers; Heads of Accounting Units and All Others
Concerned

SUBJECT : Adoption of Operational Efficiency Measure – Withdrawal of Agencies’ Unobligated

Allotments as of June 30, 2012

1.0 Rationale

The DBM, as mandated by Executive Order (EO) No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987),
periodically reviews and evaluates the departments/agencies’ efficiency and effectiveness in utilizing
budgeted funds for the delivery of services and production of goods, consistent with the government
priorities.

In the event that a measure is necessary to further improve the operational efficiency of the
government, the President is authorized to suspend or stop further use of funds allotted for any
agency or expenditure authorized in the General Appropriations Act. Withdrawal and pooling of
unutilized allotment releases can be effected by DBM based on authority of the President, as
mandated under Sections 38 and 39, Chapter 5, Book VI of EO 292.

For the first five months of 2012, the National Government has not met its spending targets. In order
to accelerate spending and sustain the fiscal targets during the year, expenditure measures have to
be implemented to optimize the utilization of available resources.

Departments/agencies have registered low spending levels, in terms of obligations and

disbursements per initial review of their 2012 performance. To enhance agencies’ performance, the
DBM conducts continuous consultation meetings and/or send call-up letters, requesting them to
identify slow-moving programs/projects and the factors/issues affecting their performance (both
pertaining to internal systems and those which are outside the agencies’ spheres of control). Also,
they are asked to formulate strategies and improvement plans for the rest of 2012.

Notwithstanding these initiatives, some departments/agencies have continued to post low obligation
levels as of end of first semester, thus resulting to substantial unobligated allotments.

In line with this, the President, per directive dated June 27, 2012 authorized the withdrawal of
unobligated allotments of agencies with low levels of obligations as of June 30, 2012, both for
continuing and current allotments. This measure will allow the maximum utilization of available
allotments to fund and undertake other priority expenditures of the national government.

2.0 Purpose

2.1 To provide the conditions and parameters on the withdrawal of unobligated

allotments of agencies as of June 30, 2012 to fund priority and/or fast-moving
programs/projects of the national government;

2.2 To prescribe the reports and documents to be used as bases on the withdrawal of
said unobligated allotments; and
 2.3 To provide guidelines in the utilization or reallocation of the withdrawn allotments.

3.0 Coverage

3.1 These guidelines shall cover the withdrawal of unobligated allotments as of June
30, 2012 of all national government agencies (NGAs) charged against FY 2011
Continuing Appropriation (R.A. No.10147) and FY 2012 Current Appropriation (R.A.
No. 10155), pertaining to:

3.1.1 Capital Outlays (CO);

3.1.2 Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE) related to the

implementation of programs and projects, as well as capitalized MOOE; and

3.1.3 Personal Services corresponding to unutilized pension benefits

declared as savings by the agencies concerned based on their
updated/validated list of pensioners.

3.2 The withdrawal of unobligated allotments may cover the identified programs,
projects and activities of the departments/agencies reflected in the DBM list shown
as Annex A or specific programs and projects as may be identified by the agencies.

4.0 Exemption

These guidelines shall not apply to the following:

4.1 NGAs

4.1.1 Constitutional Offices/Fiscal Autonomy Group, granted fiscal autonomy

under the Philippine Constitution; and

4.1.2 State Universities and Colleges, adopting the Normative Funding

allocation scheme i.e., distribution of a predetermined budget ceiling.

4.2 Fund Sources

4.2.1 Personal Services other than pension benefits;

4.2.2 MOOE items earmarked for specific purposes or subject to realignment

conditions per General Provisions of the GAA:

• Confidential and Intelligence Fund;

• Savings from Traveling, Communication, Transportation and

Delivery, Repair and Maintenance, Supplies and Materials and Utility
which shall be used for the grant of Collective Negotiation Agreement
incentive benefit;

• Savings from mandatory expenditures which can be realigned only

in the last quarter after taking into consideration the agency’s full year
 requirements, i.e., Petroleum, Oil and Lubricants, Water, Illumination,
Power Services, Telephone, other Communication Services and
Rent.

4.2.3 Foreign-Assisted Projects (loan proceeds and peso counterpart);

4.2.4 Special Purpose Funds such as: E-Government Fund, International

Commitments Fund, PAMANA, Priority Development Assistance Fund,
Calamity Fund, Budgetary Support to GOCCs and Allocation to LGUs,
among others;

4.2.5 Quick Response Funds; and

4.2.6 Automatic Appropriations i.e., Retirement Life Insurance Premium and

Special Accounts in the General Fund.

5.0 Guidelines

5.1 National government agencies shall continue to undertake procurement activities

notwithstanding the implementation of the policy of withdrawal of unobligated
allotments until the end of the third quarter, FY 2012. Even without the allotments,
the agency shall proceed in undertaking the procurement processes (i.e.,
procurement planning up to the conduct of bidding but short of awarding of contract)
pursuant to GPPB Circular Nos. 02-2008 and 01-2009 and DBM Circular Letter No.
2010-9.

5.2 For the purpose of determining the amount of unobligated allotments that shall be
withdrawn, all departments/agencies/operating units (OUs) shall submit to DBM not
later than July 30, 2012, the following budget accountability reports as of June 30,
2012;

• Statement of Allotments, Obligations and Balances (SAOB);

• Financial Report of Operations (FRO); and

• Physical Report of Operations.

5.3 In the absence of the June 30, 2012 reports cited under item 5.2 of this Circular,
the agency’s latest report available shall be used by DBM as basis for withdrawal of
allotment. The DBM shall compute/approximate the agency’s obligation level as of
June 30 to derive its unobligated allotments as of same period. Example: If the
March 31 SAOB or FRO reflects actual obligations of P 800M then the June 30
obligation level shall approximate to ₱1,600 M (i.e., ₱800 M x 2 quarters).

5.4 All released allotments in FY 2011 charged against R.A. No. 10147 which
remained unobligated as of June 30, 2012 shall be immediately considered for
withdrawal. This policy is based on the following considerations:

5.4.1 The departments/agencies’ approved priority programs and projects are

assumed to be implementation-ready and doable during the given fiscal year;
and
 5.4.2 The practice of having substantial carryover appropriations may imply
that the agency has a slower-than-programmed implementation capacity or
agency tends to implement projects within a two-year timeframe.

5.5. Consistent with the President’s directive, the DBM shall, based on evaluation of
the reports cited above and results of consultations with the departments/agencies,
withdraw the unobligated allotments as of June 30, 2012 through issuance of
negative Special Allotment Release Orders (SAROs).

5.6 DBM shall prepare and submit to the President, a report on the magnitude of
withdrawn allotments. The report shall highlight the agencies which failed to submit
the June 30 reports required under this Circular.

5.7 The withdrawn allotments may be:

5.7.1 Reissued for the original programs and projects of the agencies/OUs
concerned, from which the allotments were withdrawn;

5.7.2 Realigned to cover additional funding for other existing programs and
projects of the agency/OU; or

5.7.3 Used to augment existing programs and projects of any agency and to
fund priority programs and projects not considered in the 2012 budget but
expected to be started or implemented during the current year.

5.8 For items 5.7.1 and 5.7.2 above, agencies/OUs concerned may submit to DBM a
Special Budget Request (SBR), supported with the following:

5.8.1 Physical and Financial Plan (PFP);

5.8.2 Monthly Cash Program (MCP); and

5.8.3 Proof that the project/activity has started the procurement processes
i.e., Proof of Posting and/or Advertisement of the Invitation to Bid.

5.9 The deadline for submission of request/s pertaining to these categories shall be
until the end of the third quarter i.e., September 30, 2012. After said cut-off date, the
withdrawn allotments shall be pooled and form part of the overall savings of the
national government.

5.10 Utilization of the consolidated withdrawn allotments for other priority programs
and projects as cited under item 5.7.3 of this Circular, shall be subject to approval of
the President. Based on the approval of the President, DBM shall issue the SARO to
cover the approved priority expenditures subject to submission by the agency/OU
concerned of the SBR and supported with PFP and MCP.

5.11 It is understood that all releases to be made out of the withdrawn allotments
(both 2011 and 2012 unobligated allotments) shall be within the approved
Expenditure Program level of the national government for the current year. The
SAROs to be issued shall properly disclose the appropriation source of the release to
determine the extent of allotment validity, as follows:
 • For charges under R.A. 10147 – allotments shall be valid up to December
31, 2012; and

• For charges under R.A. 10155 – allotments shall be valid up to December

31, 2013.

5.12 Timely compliance with the submission of existing BARs and other reportorial
requirements is reiterated for monitoring purposes.

6.0 Effectivity

This circular shall take effect immediately.

(Sgd.) FLORENCIO B. ABAD

Secretary

As can be seen, NBC No. 541 specified that the unobligated allotments of all agencies and
departments as of June 30, 2012 that were charged against the continuing appropriations for fiscal
year 2011 and the 2012 GAA (R.A. No. 10155) were subject to withdrawal through the issuance of
negative SAROs, but such allotments could be either: (1) reissued for the original PAPs of the
concerned agencies from which they were withdrawn; or (2) realigned to cover additional funding for
other existing PAPs of the concerned agencies; or (3) used to augment existing PAPs of any agency
and to fund priority PAPs not considered in the 2012 budget but expected to be started or
implemented in 2012. Financing the other priority PAPs was made subject to the approval of the
President. Note here that NBC No. 541 used terminologies like "realignment" and "augmentation" in
the application of the withdrawn unobligated allotments.

Taken together, all the issuances showed how the DAP was to be implemented and funded, that is
— (1) by declaring "savings" coming from the various departments and agencies derived from
pooling unobligated allotments and withdrawing unreleased appropriations; (2) releasing
unprogrammed funds; and (3) applying the "savings" and unprogrammed funds to augment existing
PAPs or to support other priority PAPs.

c. DAP was not an appropriation

measure; hence, no appropriation
law was required to adopt or to
implement it

Petitioners Syjuco, Luna, Villegas and PHILCONSA state that Congress did not enact a law to
establish the DAP, or to authorize the disbursement and release of public funds to implement the
DAP. Villegas, PHILCONSA, IBP, Araullo, and COURAGE observe that the appropriations funded
under the DAP were not included in the 2011, 2012 and 2013 GAAs. To petitioners IBP, Araullo, and
COURAGE, the DAP, being actually an appropriation that set aside public funds for public use,
should require an enabling law for its validity. VACC maintains that the DAP, because it involved
huge allocations that were separate and distinct from the GAAs, circumvented and duplicated the
GAAs without congressional authorization and control.

The petitioners contend in unison that based on how it was developed and implemented the DAP
violated the mandate of Section 29(1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution that "[n]o money shall be
paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law."
The OSG posits, however, that no law was necessary for the adoption and implementation of the
DAP because of its being neither a fund nor an appropriation, but a program or an administrative
system of prioritizing spending; and that the adoption of the DAP was by virtue of the authority of the
President as the Chief Executive to ensure that laws were faithfully executed.

We agree with the OSG’s position.

The DAP was a government policy or strategy designed to stimulate the economy through
accelerated spending. In the context of the DAP’s adoption and implementation being a function
pertaining to the Executive as the main actor during the Budget Execution Stage under its
constitutional mandate to faithfully execute the laws, including the GAAs, Congress did not need to
legislate to adopt or to implement the DAP. Congress could appropriate but would have nothing
more to do during the Budget Execution Stage. Indeed, appropriation was the act by which
Congress "designates a particular fund, or sets apart a specified portion of the public revenue or of
the money in the public treasury, to be applied to some general object of governmental expenditure,
or to some individual purchase or expense." As pointed out in Gonzales v. Raquiza: ‘"In a strict
124 125

sense, appropriation has been defined ‘as nothing more than the legislative authorization prescribed
by the Constitution that money may be paid out of the Treasury,’ while appropriation made by law
refers to ‘the act of the legislature setting apart or assigning to a particular use a certain sum to be
used in the payment of debt or dues from the State to its creditors.’"126

On the other hand, the President, in keeping with his duty to faithfully execute the laws, had
sufficient discretion during the execution of the budget to adapt the budget to changes in the
country’s economic situation. He could adopt a plan like the DAP for the purpose. He could pool
127

the savings and identify the PAPs to be funded under the DAP. The pooling of savings pursuant to
the DAP, and the identification of the PAPs to be funded under the DAP did not involve appropriation
in the strict sense because the money had been already set apart from the public treasury by
Congress through the GAAs. In such actions, the Executive did not usurp the power vested in
Congress under Section 29(1), Article VI of the Constitution.

3.
Unreleased appropriations and withdrawn
unobligated allotments under the DAP
were not savings, and the use of such
appropriations contravened Section 25(5),
Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.

Notwithstanding our appreciation of the DAP as a plan or strategy validly adopted by the Executive
to ramp up spending to accelerate economic growth, the challenges posed by the petitioners
constrain us to dissect the mechanics of the actual execution of the DAP. The management and
utilization of the public wealth inevitably demands a most careful scrutiny of whether the Executive’s
implementation of the DAP was consistent with the Constitution, the relevant GAAs and other
existing laws.

a. Although executive discretion

and flexibility are necessary in
the execution of the budget, any
transfer of appropriated funds
should conform to Section 25(5),
Article VI of the Constitution
We begin this dissection by reiterating that Congress cannot anticipate all issues and needs that
may come into play once the budget reaches its execution stage. Executive discretion is necessary
at that stage to achieve a sound fiscal administration and assure effective budget implementation.
The heads of offices, particularly the President, require flexibility in their operations under
performance budgeting to enable them to make whatever adjustments are needed to meet
established work goals under changing conditions. In particular, the power to transfer funds can
128

give the President the flexibility to meet unforeseen events that may otherwise impede the efficient
implementation of the PAPs set by Congress in the GAA.

Congress has traditionally allowed much flexibility to the President in allocating funds pursuant to the
GAAs, particularly when the funds are grouped to form lump sum accounts. It is assumed that the
129 130

agencies of the Government enjoy more flexibility when the GAAs provide broader appropriation
items. This flexibility comes in the form of policies that the Executive may adopt during the budget
131

execution phase. The DAP – as a strategy to improve the country’s economic position – was one
policy that the President decided to carry out in order to fulfill his mandate under the GAAs.

Denying to the Executive flexibility in the expenditure process would be counterproductive. In

Presidential Spending Power, Prof. Louis Fisher, an American constitutional scholar whose
132

specialties have included budget policy, has justified extending discretionary authority to the
Executive thusly:

[T]he impulse to deny discretionary authority altogether should be resisted. There are many number
of reasons why obligations and outlays by administrators may have to differ from appropriations by
legislators. Appropriations are made many months, and sometimes years, in advance of
expenditures. Congress acts with imperfect knowledge in trying to legislate in fields that are highly
technical and constantly undergoing change. New circumstances will develop to make obsolete and
mistaken the decisions reached by Congress at the appropriation stage. It is not practicable for
Congress to adjust to each new development by passing separate supplemental appropriation bills.
Were Congress to control expenditures by confining administrators to narrow statutory details, it
would perhaps protect its power of the purse but it would not protect the purse itself. The realities
and complexities of public policy require executive discretion for the sound management of public
funds.

xxxx

x x x The expenditure process, by its very nature, requires substantial discretion for administrators.
They need to exercise judgment and take responsibility for their actions, but those actions ought to
be directed toward executing congressional, not administrative policy. Let there be discretion, but
channel it and use it to satisfy the programs and priorities established by Congress.

In contrast, by allowing to the heads of offices some power to transfer funds within their respective
offices, the Constitution itself ensures the fiscal autonomy of their offices, and at the same time
maintains the separation of powers among the three main branches of the Government. The Court
has recognized this, and emphasized so in Bengzon v. Drilon, viz:133

The Judiciary, the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman must have the independence
and flexibility needed in the discharge of their constitutional duties. The imposition of restrictions and
constraints on the manner the independent constitutional offices allocate and utilize the funds
appropriated for their operations is anathema to fiscal autonomy and violative not only of the express
mandate of the Constitution but especially as regards the Supreme Court, of the independence and
separation of powers upon which the entire fabric of our constitutional system is based.
In the case of the President, the power to transfer funds from one item to another within the
Executive has not been the mere offshoot of established usage, but has emanated from law itself. It
has existed since the time of the American Governors-General. Act No. 1902 (An Act authorizing
134

the Governor-General to direct any unexpended balances of appropriations be returned to the

general fund of the Insular Treasury and to transfer from the general fund moneys which have been
returned thereto), passed on May 18, 1909 by the First Philippine Legislature, was the first enabling
135

law that granted statutory authority to the President to transfer funds. The authority was without any
limitation, for the Act explicitly empowered the Governor-General to transfer any unexpended
balance of appropriations for any bureau or office to another, and to spend such balance as if it had
originally been appropriated for that bureau or office.

From 1916 until 1920, the appropriations laws set a cap on the amounts of funds that could be
transferred, thereby limiting the power to transfer funds. Only 10% of the amounts appropriated for
contingent or miscellaneous expenses could be transferred to a bureau or office, and the transferred
funds were to be used to cover deficiencies in the appropriations also for miscellaneous expenses of
said bureau or office.

In 1921, the ceiling on the amounts of funds to be transferred from items under miscellaneous
expenses to any other item of a certain bureau or office was removed.

During the Commonwealth period, the power of the President to transfer funds continued to be
governed by the GAAs despite the enactment of the Constitution in 1935. It is notable that the 1935
Constitution did not include a provision on the power to transfer funds. At any rate, a shift in the
extent of the President’s power to transfer funds was again experienced during this era, with the
President being given more flexibility in implementing the budget. The GAAs provided that the power
to transfer all or portions of the appropriations in the Executive Department could be made in the
"interest of the public, as the President may determine." 136

In its time, the 1971 Constitutional Convention wanted to curtail the President’s seemingly
unbounded discretion in transferring funds. Its Committee on the Budget and Appropriation
137

proposed to prohibit the transfer of funds among the separate branches of the Government and the
independent constitutional bodies, but to allow instead their respective heads to augment items of
appropriations from savings in their respective budgets under certain limitations. The clear intention
138

of the Convention was to further restrict, not to liberalize, the power to transfer
appropriations. Thus, the Committee on the Budget and Appropriation initially considered setting
139

stringent limitations on the power to augment, and suggested that the augmentation of an item of
appropriation could be made "by not more than ten percent if the original item of appropriation to be
augmented does not exceed one million pesos, or by not more than five percent if the original item of
appropriation to be augmented exceeds one million pesos." But two members of the Committee
140

objected to the ₱1,000,000.00 threshold, saying that the amount was arbitrary and might not be
reasonable in the future. The Committee agreed to eliminate the ₱1,000,000.00 threshold, and
settled on the ten percent limitation.
141

In the end, the ten percent limitation was discarded during the plenary of the Convention, which
adopted the following final version under Section 16, Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution, to wit:

(5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President, the
Prime Minister, the Speaker, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional
Commissions may by law be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for
their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.
The 1973 Constitution explicitly and categorically prohibited the transfer of funds from one item to
another, unless Congress enacted a law authorizing the President, the Prime Minister, the Speaker,
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of the Constitutional omissions to transfer
funds for the purpose of augmenting any item from savings in another item in the GAA of their
respective offices. The leeway was limited to augmentation only, and was further constricted by the
condition that the funds to be transferred should come from savings from another item in the
appropriation of the office.
142

On July 30, 1977, President Marcos issued PD No. 1177, providing in its Section 44 that:

Section 44. Authority to Approve Fund Transfers. The President shall have the authority to transfer
any fund appropriated for the different departments, bureaus, offices and agencies of the Executive
Department which are included in the General Appropriations Act, to any program, project, or activity
of any department, bureau or office included in the General Appropriations Act or approved after its
enactment.

The President shall, likewise, have the authority to augment any appropriation of the Executive
Department in the General Appropriations Act, from savings in the appropriations of another
department, bureau, office or agency within the Executive Branch, pursuant to the provisions of
Article VIII, Section 16 (5) of the Constitution.

In Demetria v. Alba, however, the Court struck down the first paragraph of Section 44 for
contravening Section 16(5)of the 1973 Constitution, ruling:

Paragraph 1 of Section 44 of P.D. No. 1177 unduly over-extends the privilege granted under said
Section 16. It empowers the President to indiscriminately transfer funds from one department,
bureau, office or agency of the Executive Department to any program, project or activity of any
department, bureau or office included in the General Appropriations Act or approved after its
enactment, without regard as to whether or not the funds to be transferred are actually savings in the
item from which the same are to be taken, or whether or not the transfer is for the purpose of
augmenting the item to which said transfer is to be made. It does not only completely disregard the
standards set in the fundamental law, thereby amounting to an undue delegation of legislative
powers, but likewise goes beyond the tenor thereof. Indeed, such constitutional infirmities render the
provision in question null and void.143

It is significant that Demetria was promulgated 25 days after the ratification by the people of the
1987 Constitution, whose Section 25(5) of Article VI is identical to Section 16(5), Article VIII of the
1973 Constitution, to wit:

Section 25. x x x

xxxx

5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President, the
President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to
augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other
items of their respective appropriations.

xxxx
The foregoing history makes it evident that the Constitutional Commission included Section 25(5),
supra, to keep a tight rein on the exercise of the power to transfer funds appropriated by Congress
by the President and the other high officials of the Government named therein. The Court stated in
Nazareth v. Villar:144

In the funding of current activities, projects, and programs, the general rule should still be that the
budgetary amount contained in the appropriations bill is the extent Congress will determine as
sufficient for the budgetary allocation for the proponent agency. The only exception is found in
Section 25 (5), Article VI of the Constitution, by which the President, the President of the Senate, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of
Constitutional Commissions are authorized to transfer appropriations to augmentany item in the GAA
for their respective offices from the savings in other items of their respective appropriations. The
plain language of the constitutional restriction leaves no room for the petitioner’s posture, which we
should now dispose of as untenable.

It bears emphasizing that the exception in favor of the high officials named in Section 25(5), Article
VI of the Constitution limiting the authority to transfer savings only to augment another item in the
GAA is strictly but reasonably construed as exclusive. As the Court has expounded in Lokin, Jr. v.
Commission on Elections:

When the statute itself enumerates the exceptions to the application of the general rule, the
exceptions are strictly but reasonably construed. The exceptions extend only as far as their
language fairly warrants, and all doubts should be resolved in favor of the general provision rather
than the exceptions. Where the general rule is established by a statute with exceptions, none but the
enacting authority can curtail the former. Not even the courts may add to the latter by implication,
and it is a rule that an express exception excludes all others, although it is always proper in
determining the applicability of the rule to inquire whether, in a particular case, it accords with reason
and justice.

The appropriate and natural office of the exception is to exempt something from the scope of the
general words of a statute, which is otherwise within the scope and meaning of such general words.
Consequently, the existence of an exception in a statute clarifies the intent that the statute shall
apply to all cases not excepted. Exceptions are subject to the rule of strict construction; hence, any
doubt will be resolved in favor of the general provision and against the exception. Indeed, the liberal
construction of a statute will seem to require in many circumstances that the exception, by which the
operation of the statute is limited or abridged, should receive a restricted construction.

Accordingly, we should interpret Section 25(5), supra, in the context of a limitation on the President’s
discretion over the appropriations during the Budget Execution Phase.

b. Requisites for the valid transfer of

appropriated funds under Section
25(5), Article VI of the 1987
Constitution

The transfer of appropriated funds, to be valid under Section 25(5), supra, must be made upon a
concurrence of the following requisites, namely:

(1) There is a law authorizing the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of the
Constitutional Commissions to transfer funds within their respective offices;
 (2) The funds to be transferred are savings generated from the appropriations for their
respective offices; and (3) The purpose of the transfer is to augment an item in the general
appropriations law for their respective offices.

b.1. First Requisite–GAAs of 2011 and

2012 lacked valid provisions to
authorize transfers of funds under
the DAP; hence, transfers under the
DAP were unconstitutional

Section 25(5), supra, not being a self-executing provision of the Constitution, must have an
implementing law for it to be operative. That law, generally, is the GAA of a given fiscal year. To
comply with the first requisite, the GAAs should expressly authorize the transfer of funds.

Did the GAAs expressly authorize the transfer of funds?

In the 2011 GAA, the provision that gave the President and the other high officials the authority to
transfer funds was Section 59, as follows:

Section 59. Use of Savings. The President of the Philippines, the Senate President, the Speaker of
the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Heads of Constitutional
Commissions enjoying fiscal autonomy, and the Ombudsman are hereby authorized to augment any
item in this Act from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.

In the 2012 GAA, the empowering provision was Section 53, to wit:

Section 53. Use of Savings. The President of the Philippines, the Senate President, the Speaker of
the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Heads of Constitutional
Commissions enjoying fiscal autonomy, and the Ombudsman are hereby authorized to augment any
item in this Act from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.

In fact, the foregoing provisions of the 2011 and 2012 GAAs were cited by the DBM as justification
for the use of savings under the DAP. 145

A reading shows, however, that the aforequoted provisions of the GAAs of 2011 and 2012 were
textually unfaithful to the Constitution for not carrying the phrase "for their respective offices"
contained in Section 25(5), supra. The impact of the phrase "for their respective offices" was to
authorize only transfers of funds within their offices (i.e., in the case of the President, the transfer
was to an item of appropriation within the Executive). The provisions carried a different phrase ("to
augment any item in this Act"), and the effect was that the 2011 and 2012 GAAs thereby literally
allowed the transfer of funds from savings to augment any item in the GAAs even if the item
belonged to an office outside the Executive. To that extent did the 2011 and 2012 GAAs contravene
the Constitution. At the very least, the aforequoted provisions cannot be used to claim authority to
transfer appropriations from the Executive to another branch, or to a constitutional commission.

Apparently realizing the problem, Congress inserted the omitted phrase in the counterpart provision
in the 2013 GAA, to wit:

Section 52. Use of Savings. The President of the Philippines, the Senate President, the Speaker of
the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Heads of Constitutional
Commissions enjoying fiscal autonomy, and the Ombudsman are hereby authorized to use savings
in their respective appropriations to augment actual deficiencies incurred for the current year in any
item of their respective appropriations.

Even had a valid law authorizing the transfer of funds pursuant to Section 25(5), supra, existed,
there still remained two other requisites to be met, namely: that the source of funds to be transferred
were savings from appropriations within the respective offices; and that the transfer must be for the
purpose of augmenting an item of appropriation within the respective offices.

b.2. Second Requisite – There were

no savings from which funds
could be sourced for the DAP
Were the funds used in the DAP actually savings?

The petitioners claim that the funds used in the DAP — the unreleased appropriations and
withdrawn unobligated allotments — were not actual savings within the context of Section 25(5),
supra, and the relevant provisions of the GAAs. Belgica argues that "savings" should be understood
to refer to the excess money after the items that needed to be funded have been funded, or those
that needed to be paid have been paid pursuant to the budget. The petitioners posit that there
146

could be savings only when the PAPs for which the funds had been appropriated were actually
implemented and completed, or finally discontinued or abandoned. They insist that savings could not
be realized with certainty in the middle of the fiscal year; and that the funds for "slow-moving" PAPs
could not be considered as savings because such PAPs had not actually been abandoned or
discontinued yet. They stress that NBC No. 541, by allowing the withdrawn funds to be reissued to
147

the "original program or project from which it was withdrawn," conceded that the PAPs from which
the supposed savings were taken had not been completed, abandoned or discontinued. 148

The OSG represents that "savings" were "appropriations balances," being the difference between
the appropriation authorized by Congress and the actual amount allotted for the appropriation; that
the definition of "savings" in the GAAs set only the parameters for determining when savings
occurred; that it was still the President (as well as the other officers vested by the Constitution with
the authority to augment) who ultimately determined when savings actually existed because savings
could be determined only during the stage of budget execution; that the President must be given a
wide discretion to accomplish his tasks; and that the withdrawn unobligated allotments were savings
inasmuch as they were clearly "portions or balances of any programmed appropriation…free from
any obligation or encumbrances which are (i) still available after the completion or final
discontinuance or abandonment of the work, activity or purpose for which the appropriation is
authorized…"

We partially find for the petitioners.

In ascertaining the meaning of savings, certain principles should be borne in mind. The first principle
is that Congress wields the power of the purse. Congress decides how the budget will be spent;
what PAPs to fund; and the amounts of money to be spent for each PAP. The second principle is that
the Executive, as the department of the Government tasked to enforce the laws, is expected to
faithfully execute the GAA and to spend the budget in accordance with the provisions of the
GAA. The Executive is expected to faithfully implement the PAPs for which Congress allocated
149

funds, and to limit the expenditures within the allocations, unless exigencies result to deficiencies for
which augmentation is authorized, subject to the conditions provided by law. The third principle is
that in making the President’s power to augment operative under the GAA, Congress recognizes the
need for flexibility in budget execution. In so doing, Congress diminishes its own power of the purse,
for it delegates a fraction of its power to the Executive. But Congress does not thereby allow the
Executive to override its authority over the purse as to let the Executive exceed its delegated
authority. And the fourth principle is that savings should be actual. "Actual" denotes something that is
real or substantial, or something that exists presently in fact, as opposed to something that is merely
theoretical, possible, potential or hypothetical.
150

The foregoing principles caution us to construe savings strictly against expanding the scope of the
power to augment. It is then indubitable that the power to augment was to be used only when the
purpose for which the funds had been allocated were already satisfied, or the need for such funds
had ceased to exist, for only then could savings be properly realized. This interpretation prevents the
Executive from unduly transgressing Congress’ power of the purse.

The definition of "savings" in the GAAs, particularly for 2011, 2012 and 2013, reflected this
interpretation and made it operational, viz:

Savings refer to portions or balances of any programmed appropriation in this Act free from any
obligation or encumbrance which are: (i) still available after the completion or final discontinuance or
abandonment of the work, activity or purpose for which the appropriation is authorized; (ii) from
appropriations balances arising from unpaid compensation and related costs pertaining to vacant
positions and leaves of absence without pay; and (iii) from appropriations balances realized from the
implementation of measures resulting in improved systems and efficiencies and thus enabled
agencies to meet and deliver the required or planned targets, programs and services approved in
this Act at a lesser cost.

The three instances listed in the GAAs’ aforequoted definition were a sure indication that savings
could be generated only upon the purpose of the appropriation being fulfilled, or upon the need for
the appropriation being no longer existent.

The phrase "free from any obligation or encumbrance" in the definition of savings in the GAAs
conveyed the notion that the appropriation was at that stage when the appropriation was already
obligated and the appropriation was already released. This interpretation was reinforced by the
enumeration of the three instances for savings to arise, which showed that the appropriation referred
to had reached the agency level. It could not be otherwise, considering that only when the
appropriation had reached the agency level could it be determined whether (a) the PAP for which the
appropriation had been authorized was completed, finally discontinued, or abandoned; or (b) there
were vacant positions and leaves of absence without pay; or (c) the required or planned targets,
programs and services were realized at a lesser cost because of the implementation of measures
resulting in improved systems and efficiencies.

The DBM declares that part of the savings brought under the DAP came from "pooling of unreleased
appropriations such as unreleased Personnel Services appropriations which will lapse at the end of
the year, unreleased appropriations of slow moving projects and discontinued projects per Zero-
Based Budgeting findings."

The declaration of the DBM by itself does not state the clear legal basis for the treatment of
unreleased or unalloted appropriations as savings.

The fact alone that the appropriations are unreleased or unalloted is a mere description of the status
of the items as unalloted or unreleased. They have not yet ripened into categories of items from
which savings can be generated. Appropriations have been considered "released" if there has
already been an allotment or authorization to incur obligations and disbursement authority. This
means that the DBM has issued either an ABM (for those not needing clearance), or a SARO (for
those needing clearance), and consequently an NCA, NCAA or CDC, as the case may be.
Appropriations remain unreleased, for instance, because of noncompliance with documentary
requirements (like the Special Budget Request), or simply because of the unavailability of funds. But
the appropriations do not actually reach the agencies to which they were allocated under the GAAs,
and have remained with the DBM technically speaking. Ergo, unreleased appropriations refer to
appropriations with allotments but without disbursement authority.

For us to consider unreleased appropriations as savings, unless these met the statutory definition of
savings, would seriously undercut the congressional power of the purse, because such
appropriations had not even reached and been used by the agency concerned vis-à-vis the PAPs for
which Congress had allocated them. However, if an agency has unfilled positions in its plantilla and
did not receive an allotment and NCA for such vacancies, appropriations for such positions, although
unreleased, may already constitute savings for that agency under the second instance.

Unobligated allotments, on the other hand, were encompassed by the first part of the definition of
"savings" in the GAA, that is, as "portions or balances of any programmed appropriation in this Act
free from any obligation or encumbrance." But the first part of the definition was further qualified by
the three enumerated instances of when savings would be realized. As such, unobligated allotments
could not be indiscriminately declared as savings without first determining whether any of the three
instances existed. This signified that the DBM’s withdrawal of unobligated allotments had
disregarded the definition of savings under the GAAs.

Justice Carpio has validly observed in his Separate Concurring Opinion that MOOE appropriations
are deemed divided into twelve monthly allocations within the fiscal year; hence, savings could be
generated monthly from the excess or unused MOOE appropriations other than the Mandatory
Expenditures and Expenditures for Business-type Activities because of the physical impossibility to
obligate and spend such funds as MOOE for a period that already lapsed. Following this
observation, MOOE for future months are not savings and cannot be transferred.

The DBM’s Memorandum for the President dated June 25, 2012 (which became the basis of NBC
No. 541) stated:

ON THE AUTHORITY TO WITHDRAW UNOBLIGATED ALLOTMENTS

5.0 The DBM, during the course of performance reviews conducted on the agencies’
operations, particularly on the implementation of their projects/activities, including expenses
incurred in undertaking the same, have been continuously calling the attention of all National
Government agencies (NGAs) with low levels of obligations as of end of the first quarter to
speedup the implementation of their programs and projects in the second quarter.

6.0 Said reminders were made in a series of consultation meetings with the concerned
agencies and with call-up letters sent.

7.0 Despite said reminders and the availability of funds at the department’s disposal, the
level of financial performance of some departments registered below program, with the
targeted obligations/disbursements for the first semester still not being met.

8.0 In order to maximize the use of the available allotment, all unobligated balances as of
June 30, 2012, both for continuing and current allotments shall be withdrawn and pooled to
fund fast moving programs/projects.
 9.0 It may be emphasized that the allotments to be withdrawn will be based on the list of
slow moving projects to be identified by the agencies and their catch up plans to be
evaluated by the DBM.

It is apparent from the foregoing text that the withdrawal of unobligated allotments would be based
on whether the allotments pertained to slow-moving projects, or not. However, NBC No. 541 did not
set in clear terms the criteria for the withdrawal of unobligated allotments, viz:

3.1. These guidelines shall cover the withdrawal of unobligated allotments as of June 30,
2012 ofall national government agencies (NGAs) charged against FY 2011 Continuing
Appropriation (R.A. No. 10147) and FY 2012 Current Appropriation (R.A. No. 10155),
pertaining to:

3.1.1 Capital Outlays (CO);

3.1.2 Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE) related to the

implementation of programs and projects, as well as capitalized MOOE; and

3.1.3 Personal Services corresponding to unutilized pension benefits declared as

savings by the agencies concerned based on their undated/validated list of
pensioners.

A perusal of its various provisions reveals that NBC No. 541 targeted the "withdrawal of unobligated
allotments of agencies with low levels of obligations" "to fund priority and/or fast-moving
151

programs/projects." But the fact that the withdrawn allotments could be "[r]eissued for the original
152

programs and projects of the agencies/OUs concerned, from which the allotments were
withdrawn" supported the conclusion that the PAPs had not yet been finally discontinued or
153

abandoned. Thus, the purpose for which the withdrawn funds had been appropriated was not yet
fulfilled, or did not yet cease to exist, rendering the declaration of the funds as savings impossible.

Worse, NBC No. 541 immediately considered for withdrawal all released allotments in 2011 charged
against the 2011 GAA that had remained unobligated based on the following considerations, to wit:

5.4.1 The departments/agencies’ approved priority programs and projects are assumed to be
implementation-ready and doable during the given fiscal year; and

5.4.2 The practice of having substantial carryover appropriations may imply that the agency
has a slower-than-programmed implementation capacity or agency tends to implement
projects within a two-year timeframe.

Such withdrawals pursuant to NBC No. 541, the circular that affected the unobligated allotments for
continuing and current appropriations as of June 30, 2012, disregarded the 2-year period of
availability of the appropriations for MOOE and capital outlay extended under Section 65, General
Provisions of the 2011 GAA, viz:

Section 65. Availability of Appropriations. — Appropriations for MOOE and capital outlays authorized
in this Act shall be available for release and obligation for the purpose specified, and under the same
special provisions applicable thereto, for a period extending to one fiscal year after the end of the
year in which such items were appropriated: PROVIDED, That appropriations for MOOE and capital
outlays under R.A. No. 9970 shall be made available up to the end of FY 2011: PROVIDED,
FURTHER, That a report on these releases and obligations shall be submitted to the Senate
Committee on Finance and the House Committee on Appropriations.

and Section 63 General Provisions of the 2012 GAA, viz:

Section 63. Availability of Appropriations. — Appropriations for MOOE and capital outlays authorized
in this Act shall be available for release and obligation for the purpose specified, and under the same
special provisions applicable thereto, for a period extending to one fiscal year after the end of the
year in which such items were appropriated: PROVIDED, That a report on these releases and
obligations shall be submitted to the Senate Committee on Finance and the House Committee on
Appropriations, either in printed form or by way of electronic document. 154

Thus, another alleged area of constitutional infirmity was that the DAP and its relevant issuances
shortened the period of availability of the appropriations for MOOE and capital outlays.

Congress provided a one-year period of availability of the funds for all allotment classes in the 2013
GAA (R.A. No. 10352), to wit:

Section 63. Availability of Appropriations.— All appropriations authorized in this Act shall be available
for release and obligation for the purposes specified, and under the same special provisions
applicable thereto, until the end of FY 2013: PROVIDED, That a report on these releases and
obligations shall be submitted to the Senate Committee on Finance and House Committee on
Appropriations, either in printed form or by way of electronic document.

Yet, in his memorandum for the President dated May 20, 2013, Sec. Abad sought omnibus authority
to consolidate savings and unutilized balances to fund the DAP on a quarterly basis, viz:

7.0 If the level of financial performance of some department will register below program,
even with the availability of funds at their disposal, the targeted obligations/disbursements for
each quarter will not be met. It is important to note that these funds will lapse at the end of
the fiscal year if these remain unobligated.

8.0 To maximize the use of the available allotment, all unobligated balances at the end of
every quarter, both for continuing and current allotments shall be withdrawn and pooled to
fund fast moving programs/projects.

9.0 It may be emphasized that the allotments to be withdrawn will be based on the list of
slow moving projects to be identified by the agencies and their catch up plans to be
evaluated by the DBM.

The validity period of the affected appropriations, already given the brief Lifes pan of one year, was
further shortened to only a quarter of a year under the DBM’s memorandum dated May 20, 2013.

The petitioners accuse the respondents of forcing the generation of savings in order to have a larger
fund available for discretionary spending. They aver that the respondents, by withdrawing
unobligated allotments in the middle of the fiscal year, in effect deprived funding for PAPs with
existing appropriations under the GAAs. 155

The respondents belie the accusation, insisting that the unobligated allotments were being
withdrawn upon the instance of the implementing agencies based on their own assessment that they
could not obligate those allotments pursuant to the President’s directive for them to spend their
appropriations as quickly as they could in order to ramp up the economy. 156

We agree with the petitioners.

Contrary to the respondents’ insistence, the withdrawals were upon the initiative of the DBM itself.
The text of NBC No. 541 bears this out, to wit:

5.2 For the purpose of determining the amount of unobligated allotments that shall be withdrawn, all
departments/agencies/operating units (OUs) shall submit to DBM not later than July 30, 2012, the
following budget accountability reports as of June 30, 2012;

• Statement of Allotments, Obligation and Balances (SAOB);

• Financial Report of Operations (FRO); and

• Physical Report of Operations.

5.3 In the absence of the June 30, 2012 reports cited under item 5.2 of this Circular, the agency’s
latest report available shall be used by DBM as basis for withdrawal of allotment. The DBM shall
compute/approximate the agency’s obligation level as of June 30 to derive its unobligated allotments
as of same period. Example: If the March 31 SAOB or FRO reflects actual obligations of P 800M
then the June 30 obligation level shall approximate to ₱1,600 M (i.e., ₱800 M x 2 quarters).

The petitioners assert that no law had authorized the withdrawal and transfer of unobligated
allotments and the pooling of unreleased appropriations; and that the unbridled withdrawal of
unobligated allotments and the retention of appropriated funds were akin to the impoundment of
appropriations that could be allowed only in case of "unmanageable national government budget
deficit" under the GAAs, thus violating the provisions of the GAAs of 2011, 2012 and 2013
157

prohibiting the retention or deduction of allotments.

158

In contrast, the respondents emphasize that NBC No. 541 adopted a spending, not saving, policy as
a last-ditch effort of the Executive to push agencies into actually spending their appropriations; that
such policy did not amount to an impoundment scheme, because impoundment referred to the
decision of the Executive to refuse to spend funds for political or ideological reasons; and that the
withdrawal of allotments under NBC No. 541 was made pursuant to Section 38, Chapter 5, Book VI
of the Administrative Code, by which the President was granted the authority to suspend or
otherwise stop further expenditure of funds allotted to any agency whenever in his judgment the
public interest so required.

The assertions of the petitioners are upheld. The withdrawal and transfer of unobligated allotments
and the pooling of unreleased appropriations were invalid for being bereft of legal support.
Nonetheless, such withdrawal of unobligated allotments and the retention of appropriated funds
cannot be considered as impoundment.

According to Philippine Constitution Association v. Enriquez: "Impoundment refers to a refusal by

159

the President, for whatever reason, to spend funds made available by Congress. It is the failure to
spend or obligate budget authority of any type." Impoundment under the GAA is understood to mean
the retention or deduction of appropriations. The 2011 GAA authorized impoundment only in case of
unmanageable National Government budget deficit, to wit:
Section 66. Prohibition Against Impoundment of Appropriations. No appropriations authorized under
this Act shall be impounded through retention or deduction, unless in accordance with the rules and
regulations to be issued by the DBM: PROVIDED, That all the funds appropriated for the purposes,
programs, projects and activities authorized under this Act, except those covered under the
Unprogrammed Fund, shall be released pursuant to Section 33 (3), Chapter 5, Book VI of E.O. No.
292.

Section 67. Unmanageable National Government Budget Deficit. Retention or deduction of

appropriations authorized in this Act shall be effected only in cases where there is an unmanageable
national government budget deficit.

Unmanageable national government budget deficit as used in this section shall be construed to
mean that (i) the actual national government budget deficit has exceeded the quarterly budget deficit
targets consistent with the full-year target deficit as indicated in the FY 2011 Budget of

Expenditures and Sources of Financing submitted by the President and approved by Congress
pursuant to Section 22, Article VII of the Constitution, or (ii) there are clear economic indications of
an impending occurrence of such condition, as determined by the Development Budget Coordinating
Committee and approved by the President.

The 2012 and 2013 GAAs contained similar provisions.

The withdrawal of unobligated allotments under the DAP should not be regarded as impoundment
because it entailed only the transfer of funds, not the retention or deduction of appropriations.

Nor could Section 68 of the 2011 GAA (and the similar provisions of the 2012 and 2013 GAAs) be
applicable. They uniformly stated:

Section 68. Prohibition Against Retention/Deduction of Allotment. Fund releases from appropriations
provided in this Act shall be transmitted intact or in full to the office or agency concerned. No
retention or deduction as reserves or overhead shall be made, except as authorized by law, or upon
direction of the President of the Philippines. The COA shall ensure compliance with this provision to
the extent that sub-allotments by agencies to their subordinate offices are in conformity with the
release documents issued by the DBM.

The provision obviously pertained to the retention or deduction of allotments upon their release from
the DBM, which was a different matter altogether. The Court should not expand the meaning of the
provision by applying it to the withdrawal of allotments.

The respondents rely on Section 38, Chapter 5, Book VI of the Administrative Code of 1987 to justify
the withdrawal of unobligated allotments. But the provision authorized only the suspension or
stoppage of further expenditures, not the withdrawal of unobligated allotments, to wit:

Section 38. Suspension of Expenditure of Appropriations.- Except as otherwise provided in the

General Appropriations Act and whenever in his judgment the public interest so requires, the
President, upon notice to the head of office concerned, is authorized to suspend or otherwise stop
further expenditure of funds allotted for any agency, or any other expenditure authorized in the
General Appropriations Act, except for personal services appropriations used for permanent officials
and employees.
Moreover, the DBM did not suspend or stop further expenditures in accordance with Section 38,
supra, but instead transferred the funds to other PAPs.

It is relevant to remind at this juncture that the balances of appropriations that remained unexpended
at the end of the fiscal year were to be reverted to the General Fund. This was the mandate of
1âwphi1

Section 28, Chapter IV, Book VI of the Administrative Code, to wit:

Section 28. Reversion of Unexpended Balances of Appropriations, Continuing Appropriations.-

Unexpended balances of appropriations authorized in the General Appropriation Act shall revert to
the unappropriated surplus of the General Fund at the end of the fiscal year and shall not thereafter
be available for expenditure except by subsequent legislative enactment: Provided, that
appropriations for capital outlays shall remain valid until fully spent or reverted: provided, further, that
continuing appropriations for current operating expenditures may be specifically recommended and
approved as such in support of projects whose effective implementation calls for multi-year
expenditure commitments: provided, finally, that the President may authorize the use of savings
realized by an agency during given year to meet non-recurring expenditures in a subsequent year.

The balances of continuing appropriations shall be reviewed as part of the annual budget
preparation process and the preparation process and the President may approve upon
recommendation of the Secretary, the reversion of funds no longer needed in connection with the
activities funded by said continuing appropriations.

The Executive could not circumvent this provision by declaring unreleased appropriations and
unobligated allotments as savings prior to the end of the fiscal year.

b.3. Third Requisite – No funds from

savings could be transferred under
the DAP to augment deficient items
not provided in the GAA

The third requisite for a valid transfer of funds is that the purpose of the transfer should be "to
augment an item in the general appropriations law for the respective offices." The term "augment"
means to enlarge or increase in size, amount, or degree. 160

The GAAs for 2011, 2012 and 2013 set as a condition for augmentation that the appropriation for the
PAP item to be augmented must be deficient, to wit: –

x x x Augmentation implies the existence in this Act of a program, activity, or project with an
appropriation, which upon implementation, or subsequent evaluation of needed resources, is
determined to be deficient. In no case shall a non-existent program, activity, or project, be funded by
augmentation from savings or by the use of appropriations otherwise authorized in this Act.

In other words, an appropriation for any PAP must first be determined to be deficient before it could
be augmented from savings. Note is taken of the fact that the 2013 GAA already made this quite
clear, thus:

Section 52. Use of Savings. The President of the Philippines, the Senate President, the Speaker of
the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Heads of Constitutional
Commissions enjoying fiscal autonomy, and the Ombudsman are hereby authorized to use savings
in their respective appropriations to augment actual deficiencies incurred for the current year in any
item of their respective appropriations.
As of 2013, a total of ₱144.4 billion worth of PAPs were implemented through the DAP. 161

Of this amount ₱82.5 billion were released in 2011 and ₱54.8 billion in 2012. Sec. Abad has
162

reported that 9% of the total DAP releases were applied to the PAPs identified by the legislators. 163

The petitioners disagree, however, and insist that the DAP supported the following PAPs that had not
been covered with appropriations in the respective GAAs, namely:

(i) ₱1.5 billion for the Cordillera People’s Liberation Army;

(ii) ₱1.8 billion for the Moro National Liberation Front;

(iii) ₱700 million for assistance to Quezon Province; 164

(iv) ₱50 million to ₱100 (million) each to certain senators; 165

(v) ₱10 billion for the relocation of families living along dangerous zones under the National
Housing Authority;

(vi) ₱10 billion and ₱20 billion equity infusion under the Bangko Sentral;

(vii) ₱5.4 billion landowners’ compensation under the Department of Agrarian Reform;

(viii) ₱8.6 billion for the ARMM comprehensive peace and development program;

(ix) ₱6.5 billion augmentation of LGU internal revenue allotments

(x) ₱5 billion for crucial projects like tourism road construction under the Department of
Tourism and the Department of Public Works and Highways;

(xi) ₱1.8 billion for the DAR-DPWH Tulay ng Pangulo;

(xii) ₱1.96 billion for the DOH-DPWH rehabilitation of regional health units; and

(xiii) ₱4 billion for the DepEd-PPP school infrastructure projects. 166

In refutation, the OSG argues that a total of 116 DAP-financed PAPs were implemented, had
appropriation covers, and could properly be accounted for because the funds were released
following and pursuant to the standard practices adopted by the DBM. In support of its argument,
167

the OSG has submitted seven evidence packets containing memoranda, SAROs, and other
pertinent documents relative to the implementation and fund transfers under the DAP. 168

Upon careful review of the documents contained in the seven evidence packets, we conclude that
the "savings" pooled under the DAP were allocated to PAPs that were not covered by any
appropriations in the pertinent GAAs.

For example, the SARO issued on December 22, 2011 for the highly vaunted Disaster Risk,
Exposure, Assessment and Mitigation (DREAM) project under the Department of Science and
Technology (DOST) covered the amount of ₱1.6 Billion, broken down as follows:
169
 APPROPRIATION PARTICULARS AMOUNT
CODE AUTHORIZED

A.03.a.01.a Generation of new knowledge and technologies

and research capability building in priority areas
identified as strategic to National Development
Personnel Services
Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses P 43,504,024
Capital Outlays 1,164,517,589
391,978,387
P 1,600,000,000

the pertinent provision of the 2011 GAA (R.A. No. 10147) showed that Congress had appropriated
only ₱537,910,000 for MOOE, but nothing for personnel services and capital outlays, to wit:

Personnel Maintenance Capital TOTAL

Services and Other Outlays
Operating
Expenditures
III. Operations
a. Funding Assistance to 177,406,000 1,887,365,000 49,090,000 2,113,861,000
Science
and Technology Activities
1. Central Office 1,554,238,000 1,554,238,000
a. Generation of new
knowledge and
technologies and
research
capability building in
priority areas identified as
strategic to National
Development 537,910,000 537,910,000

Aside from this transfer under the DAP to the DREAM project exceeding by almost 300% the
appropriation by Congress for the program Generation of new knowledge and technologies and
research capability building in priority areas identified as strategic to National Development, the
Executive allotted funds for personnel services and capital outlays. The Executive thereby
substituted its will to that of Congress. Worse, the Executive had not earlier proposed any amount for
personnel services and capital outlays in the NEP that became the basis of the 2011 GAA. 170

It is worth stressing in this connection that the failure of the GAAs to set aside any amounts for an
expense category sufficiently indicated that Congress purposely did not see fit to fund, much less
implement, the PAP concerned. This indication becomes clearer when even the President himself
did not recommend in the NEP to fund the PAP. The consequence was that any PAP requiring
expenditure that did not receive any appropriation under the GAAs could only be a new PAP, any
funding for which would go beyond the authority laid down by Congress in enacting the GAAs. That
happened in some instances under the DAP.
In relation to the December 22, 2011 SARO issued to the Philippine Council for Industry, Energy and
Emerging Technology Research and Development (DOST-PCIEETRD) for Establishment of the
171

Advanced Failure Analysis Laboratory, which reads:

APPROPRIATION PARTICULARS AMOUNT

CODE AUTHORIZED

Development, integration and coordination of the

National Research System for Industry, Energy and
A.02.a
Emerging Technology and Related Fields
Capital Outlays
P 300,000,000

the appropriation code and the particulars appearing in the SARO did not correspond to the program
specified in the GAA, whose particulars were Research and Management Services(inclusive of the
following activities: (1) Technological and Economic Assessment for Industry, Energy and Utilities; (2)
Dissemination of Science and Technology Information; and (3) Management of PCIERD Information
System for Industry, Energy and Utilities. Even assuming that Development, integration and
coordination of the National Research System for Industry, Energy and Emerging Technology and
Related Fields– the particulars stated in the SARO – could fall under the broad program description
of Research and Management Services– as appearing in the SARO, it would nonetheless remain a
new activity by reason of its not being specifically stated in the GAA. As such, the DBM, sans
legislative authorization, could not validly fund and implement such PAP under the DAP.

In defending the disbursements, however, the OSG contends that the Executive enjoyed sound
discretion in implementing the budget given the generality in the language and the broad policy
objectives identified under the GAAs; and that the President enjoyed unlimited authority to spend
172

the initial appropriations under his authority to declare and utilize savings, and in keeping with his
173

duty to faithfully execute the laws.

Although the OSG rightly contends that the Executive was authorized to spend in line with its
mandate to faithfully execute the laws (which included the GAAs), such authority did not translate to
unfettered discretion that allowed the President to substitute his own will for that of Congress. He
was still required to remain faithful to the provisions of the GAAs, given that his power to spend
pursuant to the GAAs was but a delegation to him from Congress. Verily, the power to spend the
public wealth resided in Congress, not in the Executive. Moreover, leaving the spending power of
174

the Executive unrestricted would threaten to undo the principle of separation of powers. 175

Congress acts as the guardian of the public treasury in faithful discharge of its power of the purse
whenever it deliberates and acts on the budget proposal submitted by the Executive. Its power of
176

the purse is touted as the very foundation of its institutional strength, and underpins "all other
177

legislative decisions and regulating the balance of influence between the legislative and executive
branches of government." Such enormous power encompasses the capacity to generate money for
178

the Government, to appropriate public funds, and to spend the money. Pertinently, when it
179

exercises its power of the purse, Congress wields control by specifying the PAPs for which public
money should be spent.

It is the President who proposes the budget but it is Congress that has the final say on matters of
appropriations. For this purpose, appropriation involves two governing principles, namely: (1) "a
180

Principle of the Public Fisc, asserting that all monies received from whatever source by any part of
the government are public funds;" and (2) "a Principle of Appropriations Control, prohibiting
expenditure of any public money without legislative authorization." To conform with the governing
181

principles, the Executive cannot circumvent the prohibition by Congress of an expenditure for a PAP
by resorting to either public or private funds. Nor could the Executive transfer appropriated funds
182

resulting in an increase in the budget for one PAP, for by so doing the appropriation for another PAP
is necessarily decreased. The terms of both appropriations will thereby be violated.

b.4 Third Requisite – Cross-border

augmentations from savings were
prohibited by the Constitution

By providing that the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the Heads of the Constitutional
Commissions may be authorized to augment any item in the GAA "for their respective offices,"
Section 25(5), supra, has delineated borders between their offices, such that funds appropriated for
one office are prohibited from crossing over to another office even in the guise of augmentation of a
deficient item or items. Thus, we call such transfers of funds cross-border transfers or cross-border
augmentations.

To be sure, the phrase "respective offices" used in Section 25(5), supra, refers to the entire
Executive, with respect to the President; the Senate, with respect to the Senate President; the
House of Representatives, with respect to the Speaker; the Judiciary, with respect to the Chief
Justice; the Constitutional Commissions, with respect to their respective Chairpersons.

Did any cross-border transfers or augmentations transpire?

During the oral arguments on January 28, 2014, Sec. Abad admitted making some cross-border
augmentations, to wit:

JUSTICE BERSAMIN:

Alright, the whole time that you have been Secretary of Department of Budget and Management, did
the Executive Department ever redirect any part of savings of the National Government under your
control cross border to another department?

SECRETARY ABAD:

Well, in the Memos that we submitted to you, such an instance, Your Honor

JUSTICE BERSAMIN:

Can you tell me two instances? I don’t recall having read your material.

SECRETARY ABAD:

Well, the first instance had to do with a request from the House of Representatives. They started
building their e-library in 2010 and they had a budget for about 207 Million but they lack about 43
Million to complete its 250 Million requirements. Prior to that, the COA, in an audit observation
informed the Speaker that they had to continue with that construction otherwise the whole building,
as well as the equipments therein may suffer from serious deterioration. And at that time, since the
budget of the House of Representatives was not enough to complete 250 Million, they wrote to the
President requesting for an augmentation of that particular item, which was granted, Your Honor.
The second instance in the Memos is a request from the Commission on Audit. At the time they were
pushing very strongly the good governance programs of the government and therefore, part of that is
a requirement to conduct audits as well as review financial reports of many agencies. And in the
performance of that function, the Commission on Audit needed information technology equipment as
well as hire consultants and litigators to help them with their audit work and for that they requested
funds from the Executive and the President saw that it was important for the Commission to be
provided with those IT equipments and litigators and consultants and the request was granted, Your
Honor.

JUSTICE BERSAMIN:

These cross border examples, cross border augmentations were not supported by appropriations…

SECRETARY ABAD:

They were, we were augmenting existing items within their… (interrupted)

JUSTICE BERSAMIN:

No, appropriations before you augmented because this is a cross border and the tenor or text of the
Constitution is quite clear as far as I am concerned. It says here, "The power to augment may only
be made to increase any item in the General Appropriations Law for their respective offices." Did you
not feel constricted by this provision?

SECRETARY ABAD:

Well, as the Constitution provides, the prohibition we felt was on the transfer of appropriations, Your
Honor. What we thought we did was to transfer savings which was needed by the Commission to
address deficiency in an existing item in both the Commission as well as in the House of
Representatives; that’s how we saw…(interrupted)

JUSTICE BERSAMIN:

So your position as Secretary of Budget is that you could do that?

SECRETARY ABAD:

In an extreme instances because…(interrupted)

JUSTICE BERSAMIN:

No, no, in all instances, extreme or not extreme, you could do that, that’s your feeling.

SECRETARY ABAD:

Well, in that particular situation when the request was made by the Commission and the House of
Representatives, we felt that we needed to respond because we felt…(interrupted). 183

The records show, indeed, that funds amounting to ₱143,700,000.00 and ₱250,000,000.00 were
transferred under the DAP respectively to the COA and the House of Representatives. Those
184 185
 transfers of funds, which constituted cross-border augmentations for being from the Executive to the
COA and the House of Representatives, are graphed as follows: 186

AMOUNT
DATE (In thousand pesos)
OFFICE PURPOSE
RELEASED Reserve Releases
Imposed
Commission on IT Infrastructure Program and 11/11/11 143,700
Audit hiring of additional litigation
experts
Congress – Completion of the construction of 07/23/12 207,034 250,000
House of the Legislative Library and (Savings of HOR)
Representatives Archives Building/Congressional
e-library

The respondents further stated in their memorandum that the President "made available" to the
"Commission on Elections the savings of his department upon [its] request for funds…" This was 187

another instance of a cross-border augmentation.

The respondents justified all the cross-border transfers thusly:

99. The Constitution does not prevent the President from transferring savings of his department to
another department upon the latter’s request, provided it is the recipient department that uses such
funds to augment its own appropriation. In such a case, the President merely gives the other
department access to public funds but he cannot dictate how they shall be applied by that
department whose fiscal autonomy is guaranteed by the Constitution. 188

In the oral arguments held on February 18, 2014, Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, representing
Congress, announced a different characterization of the cross-border transfers of funds as in the
nature of "aid" instead of "augmentation," viz:

HONORABLE MENDOZA:

The cross-border transfers, if Your Honors please, is not an application of the DAP. What were these
cross-border transfers? They are transfers of savings as defined in the various General
Appropriations Act. So, that makes it similar to the DAP, the use of savings. There was a cross-
border which appears to be in violation of Section 25, paragraph 5 of Article VI, in the sense that the
border was crossed. But never has it been claimed that the purpose was to augment a deficient item
in another department of the government or agency of the government. The cross-border transfers, if
Your Honors please, were in the nature of [aid] rather than augmentations. Here is a government
entity separate and independent from the Executive Department solely in need of public funds. The
President is there 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. He’s in charge of the whole operation although six
or seven heads of government offices are given the power to augment. Only the President stationed
there and in effect in-charge and has the responsibility for the failure of any part of the government.
You have election, for one reason or another, the money is not enough to hold election. There would
be chaos if no money is given as an aid, not to augment, but as an aid to a department like COA.
The President is responsible in a way that the other heads, given the power to augment, are not. So,
he cannot very well allow this, if Your Honor please.189
JUSTICE LEONEN:

May I move to another point, maybe just briefly. I am curious that the position now, I think, of
government is that some transfers of savings is now considered to be, if I’m not mistaken, aid not
augmentation. Am I correct in my hearing of your argument?

HONORABLE MENDOZA:

That’s our submission, if Your Honor, please.

JUSTICE LEONEN:

May I know, Justice, where can we situate this in the text of the Constitution? Where do we actually
derive the concepts that transfers of appropriation from one branch to the other or what happened in
DAP can be considered a said? What particular text in the Constitution can we situate this?

HONORABLE MENDOZA:

There is no particular provision or statutory provision for that matter, if Your Honor please. It is drawn
from the fact that the Executive is the executive in-charge of the success of the government.

JUSTICE LEONEN:

So, the residual powers labelled in Marcos v. Manglapus would be the basis for this theory of the
government?

HONORABLE MENDOZA:

Yes, if Your Honor, please.

JUSTICE LEONEN:

A while ago, Justice Carpio mentioned that the remedy is might be to go to Congress. That there are
opportunities and there have been opportunities of the President to actually go to Congress and ask
for supplemental budgets?

HONORABLE MENDOZA:

If there is time to do that, I would say yes.

JUSTICE LEONEN:

So, the theory of aid rather than augmentation applies in extra-ordinary situation?

HONORABLE MENDOZA:

Very extra-ordinary situations.

JUSTICE LEONEN:
But Counsel, this would be new doctrine, in case?

HONORABLE MENDOZA:

Yes, if Your Honor please. 190

Regardless of the variant characterizations of the cross-border transfers of funds, the plain text of
Section 25(5), supra, disallowing cross border transfers was disobeyed. Cross-border transfers,
whether as augmentation, or as aid, were prohibited under Section 25(5), supra.

4.
Sourcing the DAP from unprogrammed
funds despite the original revenue targets
not having been exceeded was invalid

Funding under the DAP were also sourced from unprogrammed funds provided in the GAAs for
2011, 2012,and 2013. The respondents stress, however, that the unprogrammed funds were not
brought under the DAP as savings, but as separate sources of funds; and that, consequently, the
release and use of unprogrammed funds were not subject to the restrictions under Section 25(5),
supra.

The documents contained in the Evidence Packets by the OSG have confirmed that the
unprogrammed funds were treated as separate sources of funds. Even so, the release and use of
the unprogrammed funds were still subject to restrictions, for, to start with, the GAAs precisely
specified the instances when the unprogrammed funds could be released and the purposes for
which they could be used.

The petitioners point out that a condition for the release of the unprogrammed funds was that the
revenue collections must exceed revenue targets; and that the release of the unprogrammed funds
was illegal because such condition was not met. 191

The respondents disagree, holding that the release and use of the unprogrammed funds under the
DAP were in accordance with the pertinent provisions of the GAAs. In particular, the DBM avers that
the unprogrammed funds could be availed of when any of the following three instances occur, to wit:
(1) the revenue collections exceeded the original revenue targets proposed in the BESFs submitted
by the President to Congress; (2) new revenues were collected or realized from sources not
originally considered in the BESFs; or(3) newly-approved loans for foreign assisted projects were
secured, or when conditions were triggered for other sources of funds, such as perfected loan
agreements for foreign-assisted projects. This view of the DBM was adopted by all the respondents
192

in their Consolidated Comment. 193

The BESFs for 2011, 2012 and 2013 uniformly defined "unprogrammed appropriations" as
appropriations that provided standby authority to incur additional agency obligations for priority PAPs
when revenue collections exceeded targets, and when additional foreign funds are
generated. Contrary to the DBM’s averment that there were three instances when unprogrammed
194

funds could be released, the BESFs envisioned only two instances. The third mentioned by the DBM
– the collection of new revenues from sources not originally considered in the BESFs – was not
included. This meant that the collection of additional revenues from new sources did not warrant the
release of the unprogrammed funds. Hence, even if the revenues not considered in the BESFs were
collected or generated, the basic condition that the revenue collections should exceed the revenue
targets must still be complied with in order to justify the release of the unprogrammed funds.
The view that there were only two instances when the unprogrammed funds could be released was
bolstered by the following texts of the Special Provisions of the 2011 and 2012 GAAs, to wit:

2011 GAA

1. Release of Fund. The amounts authorized herein shall be released only when the revenue
collections exceed the original revenue targets submitted by the President of the Philippines to
Congress pursuant to Section 22, Article VII of the Constitution, including savings generated from
programmed appropriations for the year: PROVIDED, That collections arising from sources not
considered in the aforesaid original revenue targets may be used to cover releases from
appropriations in this Fund: PROVIDED, FURTHER, That in case of newly approved loans for
foreign-assisted projects, the existence of a perfected loan agreement for the purpose shall be
sufficient basis for the issuance of a SARO covering the loan proceeds: PROVIDED,
FURTHERMORE, That if there are savings generated from the programmed appropriations for the
first two quarters of the year, the DBM may, subject to the approval of the President, release the
pertinent appropriations under the Unprogrammed Fund corresponding to only fifty percent (50%) of
the said savings net of revenue shortfall: PROVIDED, FINALLY, That the release of the balance of
the total savings from programmed appropriations for the year shall be subject to fiscal programming
and approval of the President.

2012 GAA

1. Release of the Fund. The amounts authorized herein shall be released only when the revenue
collections exceed the original revenue targets submitted by the President of the Philippines to
Congress pursuant to Section 22, Article VII of the Constitution: PROVIDED, That collections arising
from sources not considered in the aforesaid original revenue targets may be used to cover releases
from appropriations in this Fund: PROVIDED, FURTHER, That in case of newly approved loans for
foreign-assisted projects, the existence of a perfected loan agreement for the purpose shall be
sufficient basis for the issuance of a SARO covering the loan proceeds.

As can be noted, the provisos in both provisions to the effect that "collections arising from sources
not considered in the aforesaid original revenue targets may be used to cover releases from
appropriations in this Fund" gave the authority to use such additional revenues for appropriations
funded from the unprogrammed funds. They did not at all waive compliance with the basic
requirement that revenue collections must still exceed the original revenue targets.

In contrast, the texts of the provisos with regard to additional revenues generated from newly-
approved foreign loans were clear to the effect that the perfected loan agreement would be in itself
"sufficient basis" for the issuance of a SARO to release the funds but only to the extent of the
amount of the loan. In such instance, the revenue collections need not exceed the revenue targets to
warrant the release of the loan proceeds, and the mere perfection of the loan agreement would
suffice.

It can be inferred from the foregoing that under these provisions of the GAAs the additional revenues
from sources not considered in the BESFs must be taken into account in determining if the revenue
collections exceeded the revenue targets. The text of the relevant provision of the 2013 GAA, which
was substantially similar to those of the GAAs for 2011 and 2012, already made this explicit, thus:

1. Release of the Fund. The amounts authorized herein shall be released only when the revenue
collections exceed the original revenue targets submitted by the President of the Philippines to
Congress pursuant to Section 22, Article VII of the Constitution, including collections arising from
sources not considered in the aforesaid original revenue target, as certified by the BTr: PROVIDED,
That in case of newly approved loans for foreign-assisted projects, the existence of a perfected loan
agreement for the purpose shall be sufficient basis for the issuance of a SARO covering the loan
proceeds.

Consequently, that there were additional revenues from sources not considered in the revenue
target would not be enough. The total revenue collections must still exceed the original revenue
targets to justify the release of the unprogrammed funds (other than those from newly-approved
foreign loans).

The present controversy on the unprogrammed funds was rooted in the correct interpretation of the
phrase "revenue collections should exceed the original revenue targets." The petitioners take the
phrase to mean that the total revenue collections must exceed the total revenue target stated in the
BESF, but the respondents understand the phrase to refer only to the collections for each source of
revenue as enumerated in the BESF, with the condition being deemed complied with once the
revenue collections from a particular source already exceeded the stated target.

The BESF provided for the following sources of revenue, with the corresponding revenue target
stated for each source of revenue, to wit:

TAX REVENUES

Taxes on Net Income and Profits

Taxes on Property
Taxes on Domestic Goods and Services

General Sales, Turnover or VAT

Selected Excises on Goods

Selected Taxes on Services

Taxes on the Use of Goods or Property or Permission to Perform Activities
Other Taxes
Taxes on International Trade and Transactions

NON-TAX REVENUES

Fees and Charges

BTR Income

Government Services
Interest on NG Deposits
Interest on Advances to Government Corporations
Income from Investments

Interest on Bond Holdings

Guarantee Fee
Gain on Foreign Exchange
NG Income Collected by BTr

Dividends on Stocks
NG Share from Airport Terminal Fee
 NG Share from PAGCOR Income
NG Share from MIAA Profit

Privatization
Foreign Grants

Thus, when the Court required the respondents to submit a certification from the Bureau of Treasury
(BTr) to the effect that the revenue collections had exceeded the original revenue targets, they
195

complied by submitting certifications from the BTr and Department of Finance (DOF) pertaining to
only one identified source of revenue – the dividends from the shares of stock held by the
Government in government-owned and controlled corporations.

To justify the release of the unprogrammed funds for 2011, the OSG presented the certification dated
March 4, 2011 issued by DOF Undersecretary Gil S. Beltran, as follows:

This is to certify that under the Budget for Expenditures and Sources of Financing for 2011, the
programmed income from dividends from shares of stock in government-owned and controlled
corporations is 5.5 billion.

This is to certify further that based on the records of the Bureau of Treasury, the National
Government has recorded dividend income amounting to ₱23.8 billion as of 31 January 2011. 196

For 2012, the OSG submitted the certification dated April 26, 2012 issued by National Treasurer
Roberto B. Tan, viz:

This is to certify that the actual dividend collections remitted to the National Government for the
period January to March 2012 amounted to ₱19.419 billion compared to the full year program of
₱5.5 billion for 2012. 197

And, finally, for 2013, the OSG presented the certification dated July 3, 2013 issued by National
Treasurer Rosalia V. De Leon, to wit:

This is to certify that the actual dividend collections remitted to the National Government for the
period January to May 2013 amounted to ₱12.438 billion compared to the full year program of
₱10.0 billion for 2013.
198

Moreover, the National Government accounted for the sale of the right to build and operate the NAIA
expressway amounting to ₱11.0 billion in June 2013. 199

The certifications reflected that by collecting dividends amounting to ₱23.8 billion in 2011, ₱19.419
billion in 2012, and ₱12.438 billion in 2013 the BTr had exceeded only the ₱5.5 billion in target
revenues in the form of dividends from stocks in each of 2011 and 2012, and only the ₱10 billion in
target revenues in the form of dividends from stocks in 2013.

However, the requirement that revenue collections exceed the original revenue targets was to be
construed in light of the purpose for which the unprogrammed funds were incorporated in the GAAs
as standby appropriations to support additional expenditures for certain priority PAPs should the
revenue collections exceed the resource targets assumed in the budget or when additional foreign
project loan proceeds were realized. The unprogrammed funds were included in the GAAs to
provide ready cover so as not to delay the implementation of the PAPs should new or additional
revenue sources be realized during the year. Given the tenor of the certifications, the
200

unprogrammed funds were thus not yet supported by the corresponding resources. 201

The revenue targets stated in the BESF were intended to address the funding requirements of the
proposed programmed appropriations. In contrast, the unprogrammed funds, as standby
appropriations, were to be released only when there were revenues in excess of what the
programmed appropriations required. As such, the revenue targets should be considered as a
whole, not individually; otherwise, we would be dealing with artificial revenue surpluses. The
requirement that revenue collections must exceed revenue target should be understood to mean that
the revenue collections must exceed the total of the revenue targets stated in the BESF. Moreover,
to release the unprogrammed funds simply because there was an excess revenue as to one source
of revenue would be an unsound fiscal management measure because it would disregard the budget
plan and foster budget deficits, in contravention of the Government’s surplus budget policy. 202

We cannot, therefore, subscribe to the respondents’ view.

5.
Equal protection, checks and balances,
and public accountability challenges

The DAP is further challenged as violative of the Equal Protection Clause, the system of checks and
balances, and the principle of public accountability.

With respect to the challenge against the DAP under the Equal Protection Clause, Luna argues
203

that the implementation of the DAP was "unfair as it [was] selective" because the funds released
under the DAP was not made available to all the legislators, with some of them refusing to avail
themselves of the DAP funds, and others being unaware of the availability of such funds. Thus, the
DAP practised "undue favoritism" in favor of select legislators in contravention of the Equal
Protection Clause.

Similarly, COURAGE contends that the DAP violated the Equal Protection Clause because no
reasonable classification was used in distributing the funds under the DAP; and that the Senators
who supposedly availed themselves of said funds were differently treated as to the amounts they
respectively received.

Anent the petitioners’ theory that the DAP violated the system of checks and balances, Luna submits
that the grant of the funds under the DAP to some legislators forced their silence about the issues
and anomalies surrounding the DAP. Meanwhile, Belgica stresses that the DAP, by allowing the
legislators to identify PAPs, authorized them to take part in the implementation and execution of the
GAAs, a function that exclusively belonged to the Executive; that such situation constituted undue
and unjustified legislative encroachment in the functions of the Executive; and that the President
arrogated unto himself the power of appropriation vested in Congress because NBC No. 541
authorized the use of the funds under the DAP for PAPs not considered in the 2012 budget.

Finally, the petitioners insist that the DAP was repugnant to the principle of public accountability
enshrined in the Constitution, because the legislators relinquished the power of appropriation to the
204

Executive, and exhibited a reluctance to inquire into the legality of the DAP.

The OSG counters the challenges, stating that the supposed discrimination in the release of funds
under the DAP could be raised only by the affected Members of Congress themselves, and if the
challenge based on the violation of the Equal Protection Clause was really against the
constitutionality of the DAP, the arguments of the petitioners should be directed to the entitlement of
the legislators to the funds, not to the proposition that all of the legislators should have been given
such entitlement.

The challenge based on the contravention of the Equal Protection Clause, which focuses on the
release of funds under the DAP to legislators, lacks factual and legal basis. The allegations about
Senators and Congressmen being unaware of the existence and implementation of the DAP, and
about some of them having refused to accept such funds were unsupported with relevant data. Also,
the claim that the Executive discriminated against some legislators on the ground alone of their
receiving less than the others could not of itself warrant a finding of contravention of the Equal
Protection Clause. The denial of equal protection of any law should be an issue to be raised only by
parties who supposedly suffer it, and, in these cases, such parties would be the few legislators
claimed to have been discriminated against in the releases of funds under the DAP. The reason for
the requirement is that only such affected legislators could properly and fully bring to the fore when
and how the denial of equal protection occurred, and explain why there was a denial in their
situation. The requirement was not met here. Consequently, the Court was not put in the position to
determine if there was a denial of equal protection. To have the Court do so despite the inadequacy
of the showing of factual and legal support would be to compel it to speculate, and the outcome
would not do justice to those for whose supposed benefit the claim of denial of equal protection has
been made.

The argument that the release of funds under the DAP effectively stayed the hands of the legislators
from conducting congressional inquiries into the legality and propriety of the DAP is speculative. That
deficiency eliminated any need to consider and resolve the argument, for it is fundamental that
speculation would not support any proper judicial determination of an issue simply because nothing
concrete can thereby be gained. In order to sustain their constitutional challenges against official
acts of the Government, the petitioners must discharge the basic burden of proving that the
constitutional infirmities actually existed. Simply put, guesswork and speculation cannot overcome
205

the presumption of the constitutionality of the assailed executive act.

We do not need to discuss whether or not the DAP and its implementation through the various
circulars and memoranda of the DBM transgressed the system of checks and balances in place in
our constitutional system. Our earlier expositions on the DAP and its implementing issuances
infringing the doctrine of separation of powers effectively addressed this particular concern.

Anent the principle of public accountability being transgressed because the adoption and
implementation of the DAP constituted an assumption by the Executive of Congress’ power of
appropriation, we have already held that the DAP and its implementing issuances were policies and
acts that the Executive could properly adopt and do in the execution of the GAAs to the extent that
they sought to implement strategies to ramp up or accelerate the economy of the country.

6.
Doctrine of operative fact was applicable

After declaring the DAP and its implementing issuances constitutionally infirm, we must now deal
with the consequences of the declaration.

Article 7 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-observance shall
not be excused by disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary.
When the courts declared a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and
the latter shall govern.

Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not
contrary to the laws or the Constitution.

A legislative or executive act that is declared void for being unconstitutional cannot give rise to any
right or obligation. However, the generality of the rule makes us ponder whether rigidly applying the
206

rule may at times be impracticable or wasteful. Should we not recognize the need to except from the
rigid application of the rule the instances in which the void law or executive act produced an almost
irreversible result?

The need is answered by the doctrine of operative fact. The doctrine, definitely not a novel one, has
been exhaustively explained in De Agbayani v. Philippine National Bank: 207

The decision now on appeal reflects the orthodox view that an unconstitutional act, for that matter an
executive order or a municipal ordinance likewise suffering from that infirmity, cannot be the source
of any legal rights or duties. Nor can it justify any official act taken under it. Its repugnancy to the
fundamental law once judicially declared results in its being to all intents and purposes a mere scrap
of paper. As the new Civil Code puts it: ‘When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the
Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern.’ Administrative or executive acts,
orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws of the Constitution.
It is understandable why it should be so, the Constitution being supreme and paramount. Any
legislative or executive act contrary to its terms cannot survive.

Such a view has support in logic and possesses the merit of simplicity. It may not however be
sufficiently realistic. It does not admit of doubt that prior to the declaration of nullity such challenged
legislative or executive act must have been in force and had to be complied with. This is so as until
after the judiciary, in an appropriate case, declares its invalidity, it is entitled to obedience and
respect. Parties may have acted under it and may have changed their positions. What could be more
fitting than that in a subsequent litigation regard be had to what has been done while such legislative
or executive act was in operation and presumed to be valid in all respects. It is now accepted as a
doctrine that prior to its being nullified, its existence as a fact must be reckoned with. This is merely
to reflect awareness that precisely because the judiciary is the governmental organ which has the
final say on whether or not a legislative or executive measure is valid, a period of time may have
elapsed before it can exercise the power of judicial review that may lead to a declaration of nullity. It
would be to deprive the law of its quality of fairness and justice then, if there be no recognition of
what had transpired prior to such adjudication.

In the language of an American Supreme Court decision: ‘The actual existence of a statute, prior to
such a determination [of unconstitutionality], is an operative fact and may have consequences which
cannot justly be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration. The effect
of the subsequent ruling as to invalidity may have to be considered in various aspects, with respect
to particular relations, individual and corporate, and particular conduct, private and official.’"

The doctrine of operative fact recognizes the existence of the law or executive act prior to the
determination of its unconstitutionality as an operative fact that produced consequences that cannot
always be erased, ignored or disregarded. In short, it nullifies the void law or executive act but
sustains its effects. It provides an exception to the general rule that a void or unconstitutional law
produces no effect. But its use must be subjected to great scrutiny and circumspection, and it
208

cannot be invoked to validate an unconstitutional law or executive act, but is resorted to only as a
matter of equity and fair play. It applies only to cases where extraordinary circumstances exist, and
209
only when the extraordinary circumstances have met the stringent conditions that will permit its
application.

We find the doctrine of operative fact applicable to the adoption and implementation of the DAP. Its
application to the DAP proceeds from equity and fair play. The consequences resulting from the DAP
and its related issuances could not be ignored or could no longer be undone.

To be clear, the doctrine of operative fact extends to a void or unconstitutional executive act. The
term executive act is broad enough to include any and all acts of the Executive, including those that
are quasi legislative and quasi-judicial in nature. The Court held so in Hacienda Luisita, Inc. v.
Presidential Agrarian Reform Council: 210

Nonetheless, the minority is of the persistent view that the applicability of the operative fact doctrine
should be limited to statutes and rules and regulations issued by the executive department that are
accorded the same status as that of a statute or those which are quasi-legislative in nature. Thus,
the minority concludes that the phrase ‘executive act’ used in the case of De Agbayani v. Philippine
National Bank refers only to acts, orders, and rules and regulations that have the force and effect of
law. The minority also made mention of the Concurring Opinion of Justice Enrique Fernando in
Municipality of Malabang v. Benito, where it was supposedly made explicit that the operative fact
doctrine applies to executive acts, which are ultimately quasi-legislative in nature.

We disagree. For one, neither the De Agbayani case nor the Municipality of Malabang case
elaborates what ‘executive act’ mean. Moreover, while orders, rules and regulations issued by the
President or the executive branch have fixed definitions and meaning in the Administrative Code and
jurisprudence, the phrase ‘executive act’ does not have such specific definition under existing laws. It
should be noted that in the cases cited by the minority, nowhere can it be found that the term
‘executive act’ is confined to the foregoing. Contrarily, the term ‘executive act’ is broad enough to
encompass decisions of administrative bodies and agencies under the executive department which
are subsequently revoked by the agency in question or nullified by the Court.

A case in point is the concurrent appointment of Magdangal B. Elma (Elma) as Chairman of the
Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and as Chief Presidential Legal Counsel
(CPLC) which was declared unconstitutional by this Court in Public Interest Center, Inc. v. Elma. In
said case, this Court ruled that the concurrent appointment of Elma to these offices is in violation of
Section 7, par. 2, Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution, since these are incompatible offices. Notably,
the appointment of Elma as Chairman of the PCGG and as CPLC is, without a question, an
executive act. Prior to the declaration of unconstitutionality of the said executive act, certain acts or
transactions were made in good faith and in reliance of the appointment of Elma which cannot just
be set aside or invalidated by its subsequent invalidation.

In Tan v. Barrios, this Court, in applying the operative fact doctrine, held that despite the invalidity of
the jurisdiction of the military courts over civilians, certain operative facts must be acknowledged to
have existed so as not to trample upon the rights of the accused therein. Relevant thereto, in
Olaguer v. Military Commission No. 34, it was ruled that ‘military tribunals pertain to the Executive
Department of the Government and are simply instrumentalities of the executive power, provided by
the legislature for the President as Commander-in-Chief to aid him in properly commanding the army
and navy and enforcing discipline therein, and utilized under his orders or those of his authorized
military representatives.’

Evidently, the operative fact doctrine is not confined to statutes and rules and regulations issued by
the executive department that are accorded the same status as that of a statute or those which are
quasi-legislative in nature.
Even assuming that De Agbayani initially applied the operative fact doctrine only to executive
issuances like orders and rules and regulations, said principle can nonetheless be applied, by
analogy, to decisions made by the President or the agencies under the executive department. This
doctrine, in the interest of justice and equity, can be applied liberally and in a broad sense to
encompass said decisions of the executive branch. In keeping with the demands of equity, the Court
can apply the operative fact doctrine to acts and consequences that resulted from the reliance not
only on a law or executive act which is quasi-legislative in nature but also on decisions or orders of
the executive branch which were later nullified. This Court is not unmindful that such acts and
consequences must be recognized in the higher interest of justice, equity and fairness.

Significantly, a decision made by the President or the administrative agencies has to be complied
with because it has the force and effect of law, springing from the powers of the President under the
Constitution and existing laws. Prior to the nullification or recall of said decision, it may have
produced acts and consequences in conformity to and in reliance of said decision, which must be
respected. It is on this score that the operative fact doctrine should be applied to acts and
consequences that resulted from the implementation of the PARC Resolution approving the SDP of
HLI. (Bold underscoring supplied for emphasis)

In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Roque Power Corporation, the Court likewise declared
211

that "for the operative fact doctrine to apply, there must be a ‘legislative or executive measure,’
meaning a law or executive issuance." Thus, the Court opined there that the operative fact doctrine
did not apply to a mere administrative practice of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, viz:

Under Section 246, taxpayers may rely upon a rule or ruling issued by the Commissioner from the
time the rule or ruling is issued up to its reversal by the Commissioner or this Court. The reversal is
not given retroactive effect. This, in essence, is the doctrine of operative fact. There must, however,
be a rule or ruling issued by the Commissioner that is relied upon by the taxpayer in good faith. A
mere administrative practice, not formalized into a rule or ruling, will not suffice because such a mere
administrative practice may not be uniformly and consistently applied. An administrative practice, if
not formalized as a rule or ruling, will not be known to the general public and can be availed of only
by those with informal contacts with the government agency.

It is clear from the foregoing that the adoption and the implementation of the DAP and its related
issuances were executive acts. The DAP itself, as a policy, transcended a merely administrative
1avvphi1

practice especially after the Executive, through the DBM, implemented it by issuing various
memoranda and circulars. The pooling of savings pursuant to the DAP from the allotments made
available to the different agencies and departments was consistently applied throughout the entire
Executive. With the Executive, through the DBM, being in charge of the third phase of the budget
cycle – the budget execution phase, the President could legitimately adopt a policy like the DAP by
virtue of his primary responsibility as the Chief Executive of directing the national economy towards
growth and development. This is simply because savings could and should be determined only
during the budget execution phase.

As already mentioned, the implementation of the DAP resulted into the use of savings pooled by the
Executive to finance the PAPs that were not covered in the GAA, or that did not have proper
appropriation covers, as well as to augment items pertaining to other departments of the
Government in clear violation of the Constitution. To declare the implementation of the DAP
unconstitutional without recognizing that its prior implementation constituted an operative fact that
produced consequences in the real as well as juristic worlds of the Government and the Nation is to
be impractical and unfair. Unless the doctrine is held to apply, the Executive as the disburser and the
offices under it and elsewhere as the recipients could be required to undo everything that they had
implemented in good faith under the DAP. That scenario would be enormously burdensome for the
Government. Equity alleviates such burden.

The other side of the coin is that it has been adequately shown as to be beyond debate that the
implementation of the DAP yielded undeniably positive results that enhanced the economic welfare
of the country. To count the positive results may be impossible, but the visible ones, like public
infrastructure, could easily include roads, bridges, homes for the homeless, hospitals, classrooms
and the like. Not to apply the doctrine of operative fact to the DAP could literally cause the physical
undoing of such worthy results by destruction, and would result in most undesirable wastefulness.

Nonetheless, as Justice Brion has pointed out during the deliberations, the doctrine of operative fact
does not always apply, and is not always the consequence of every declaration of constitutional
invalidity. It can be invoked only in situations where the nullification of the effects of what used to be
a valid law would result in inequity and injustice; but where no such result would ensue, the general
212

rule that an unconstitutional law is totally ineffective should apply.

In that context, as Justice Brion has clarified, the doctrine of operative fact can apply only to the
PAPs that can no longer be undone, and whose beneficiaries relied in good faith on the validity of
the DAP, but cannot apply to the authors, proponents and implementors of the DAP, unless there are
concrete findings of good faith in their favor by the proper tribunals determining their criminal, civil,
administrative and other liabilities.

WHEREFORE, the Court PARTIALLY GRANTS the petitions for certiorari and prohibition; and
DECLARES the following acts and practices under the Disbursement Acceleration Program,
National Budget Circular No. 541 and related executive issuances UNCONSTITUTIONAL for being
in violation of Section 25(5), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and the doctrine of separation of
powers, namely:

(a) The withdrawal of unobligated allotments from the implementing agencies, and the
declaration of the withdrawn unobligated allotments and unreleased appropriations as
savings prior to the end of the fiscal year and without complying with the statutory definition
of savings contained in the General Appropriations Acts;

(b) The cross-border transfers of the savings of the Executive to augment the appropriations
of other offices outside the Executive; and

(c) The funding of projects, activities and programs that were not covered by any
appropriation in the General Appropriations Act.

The Court further DECLARES VOID the use of unprogrammed funds despite the absence of a
certification by the National Treasurer that the revenue collections exceeded the revenue targets for
non-compliance with the conditions provided in the relevant General Appropriations Acts.

SO ORDERED.