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.

FACTS:

I. Pork Barrel General Concept

Pork Barrel is commonly known as the lump-sum,

discretionary funds of the members of the Congress. It
underwent several legal destinations from “Congressional Pork
Barrel”, now known as Priority Development Assistance Fund or
PDAF. The allocation of the Pork Barrel is merged in the annual
General Appropriations Act (GAA).

Allocation of the PDAF since 2011:

a. 70 Million Php – for each member of the lower house; 40

million for hard projects, 30 million for soft projects
b. 200 Million Php- for each senator; 100 million for hard
projects, 100 million for soft projects
c. 200 Million Php- for the Vice President; 100M for hard
projects, 100M for soft projects

Certain Cabinet members may realign the funds into their

department, provided that the realignment is approved by the
legislator concerned.

The president also has his own pork barrel (Presidential

Pork Barrel), from 2 sources: a. Malampaya funds from the
Malampaya Gas Project, b. Presidential Social Fund derived from
the earnings of PAGCOR.

II. Probing PDAF Allocation Allegations

In July 2013, the NBI began its probe in the corruption

allegations regarding the PDAF. It was alleged that the
government has been defrauded of some P10 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. JLN Corporation (JLN stands for Janet Lim Napoles) had
swindled billions of pesos to fund ghost projects using 20 dummy
NGOs for a decade.

On September 3, 2013 Greco Belgica and several others filed

petitions before the Supreme Court questioning the
constitutionality of the Pork Barrel Systems.

ISSUE:

I. Whether or not the congressional pork barrel system is

constitutional.
II. Whether or not the presidential pork barrel system is
constitutional.

HELD:

I. No, the congressional pork barrel system is

unconstitutional as it violates the following principles:

a. Separation of powers- as a rule, Congress has

the budgeting power. It regulates the release of
funds. Only the executive can implement the law
however, under the pork barrel systems, the
legislators themselves dictate as to which projects
their PDAF funds should be allocated to – a clear act
of implementing the law they enacted – a violation of
the principle of separation of powers.

b. Principle of checks and balances- Under this

principle, the president may deny items on the GAA
which he may deem inappropriate. This power is already
being undermined because of the fact that once the GAA
is approved, the legislator can now identify the
project to which he will appropriate his
PDAF. “Congress cannot choose a mode of budgeting
which effectively renders the constitutionally-given
power of the President useless.”
II. Yes, the presidential pork barrel system is constitutional.
The main issue raised by Belgica et al against the presidential
pork barrel is that it is unconstitutional because it violates
Section 29 (1), Article VI of the Constitution which provides:
No money shall be paid out of the treasury except in pursuance
of an appropriation made by law.

Belgica et al emphasized that the presidential pork comes

from the earnings of the Malampaya and PAGCOR and not from any
appropriation from a particular legislation.
The Supreme Court disagrees as it ruled that PD 910, which
created the Malampaya Fund, as well as PD 1869 (as amended by PD
1993), which amended PAGCOR’s charter, provided for the
appropriation, to wit:
(i) PD 910: Section 8 thereof provides that all fees,
among others, collected from certain energy-related
ventures shall form part of a special fund (the Malampaya
Fund) which shall be used to further finance energy
resource development and for other purposes which the
President may direct;
(ii) PD 1869, as amended: Section 12 thereof provides
that a part of PAGCOR’s earnings shall be allocated to a
General Fund (the Presidential Social Fund) which shall be
used in government infrastructure projects.

These are sufficient laws, which met the requirement of

Section 29, Article VI of the Constitution. The appropriation
contemplated therein does not have to be a particular
appropriation as it can be a general appropriation as in the
case of PD 910 and PD 1869.

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 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."267 "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.”

For these reasons, this Decision should be heretofore

applied prospectively.