LAWYERS AGAINST MONOPOLY

AND POVERTY (LAMP), represented by its Chairman

and counsel, CEFERINO PADUA, Members, ALBERTO ABELEDA, JR., ELEAZAR
ANGELES, GREGELY FULTON ACOSTA, VICTOR AVECILLA, GALILEO BRION,
ANATALIA BUENAVENTURA, EFREN CARAG, PEDRO CASTILLO, NAPOLEON
CORONADO, ROMEO ECHAUZ, ALFREDO
DE GUZMAN, ROGELIO KARAGDAG, JR., MARIA LUZ ARZAGA-MENDOZA, LEO LUIS
MENDOZA, ANTONIO P. PAREDES, AQUILINO PIMENTEL III, MARIO REYES,
EMMANUEL SANTOS, TERESITA SANTOS, RUDEGELIO TACORDA, SECRETARY
GEN. ROLANDO ARZAGA, Board of Consultants, JUSTICE ABRAHAM SARMIENTO,
SEN. AQUILINO PIMENTEL, JR., and BARTOLOME FERNANDEZ, JR.,
Petitioners,

- versus

THE SECRETARY OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, THE TREASURER OF THE

PHILIPPINES, THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, and THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE
and the SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES in representation of the
Members
of the Congress,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 164987

Facts:

According to the petitioner, the provision within the General Appropriations Act for 2004
(GAA of 2004) concerning the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) worth 8.327
Billion Pesos prohibits an automatic allocation of lump sums to individual congressmen
and senators for project funding - features of the Countrywide Development Fund (CDF)
also known as the pork barrel system. Such is no longer seen on the current law (RA No
9206 of CY 2004).

Issues:

1. Whether or not budget allocations out of PDAF had been illegally released by DBM in
favor of the Members of Congress and if requisites for judicial review had been met
2. Whether or not the individual Members of Congress possess the power to define the
projects by which PDAF would be allocated and if the same is illegal or unconstitutional

Held:

1. Judicial review has limitations as it is necessary that there are conditions that need to
be met in order for it to be done: case of controversy, person assailing the act must be
eligible to question the subject’s validity, questioning must be done at the earliest
opportunity, and the issue must define the case. Such were not met.
2. The Court rules that the implementation of PDAF provision under GAA of 2004 did not
violate the Constitution. A clear un unequivocal breach of the Constitution must be
present in order to justify the nullification of the implementation of the law or the law
itself.
Wherefore, petition is DISMISSED.
G.R. No. L-19650 September 29, 1966
CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., petitioner-appellee,
vs.
ENRICO PALOMAR, in his capacity as THE POSTMASTER GENERAL,
respondent-appellant.

Facts:

A declaratory relief petition was filed against Postmaster General Enrico Palomar
with the intent that the “Caltex Hooded Pump Contest” be declared non violative of
the Postal Law and ordering the said petitioner to bring the attention of the public to
the contest by use of mails.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the petition have sufficient cause of action for declaratory relief
2. Whether or not the “Caltex Hooded Pump Contest” is in violation of the Postal
Law.

Held:

1. According to Section 1 Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, declaratory relief is

available to those "whose rights are affected by a statute…to determine any
question of construction or validity arising under the . . . statute and for a
declaration of his rights thereunder" (now section 1, Rule 64, Revised Rules of
Court), the controversy must be among persons with adverse interest, legal
interest must be present among the party seeking declaratory relief, and the
issue must be eligible for judicial determination. There is no sufficient cause of
action for such declaratory relief.
2. The Trial Court declares that the “Caltex Hooded Pump Contest” is not a lottery
that may be adversely and administratively be under the Postal Law. Gift
Enterprises and similar schemes are only condemnable if they involve payment
of the contestant in order to participate. The appellee may not be denied the
use of mails for the purposes mentioned.

Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED.