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.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

In the instant case the Petitioner assail the validity of the Pork Barrel System and
Priority Development Assistance Fund" (PDAF).

RULING:

In the case the Court laid the foundation on function of the three branches of the
Government; Executive, Legislative and Judiciary. The principle of checks and
balance. In relation to the case at bar Pork Barrel System and PDAF traces its roots
since the Act 3044, or the Public Works Act of 1922 Presidential Decree No. (PD)
910 respectively.
The Pork Barrel System and PDAF being operation and under the uncontested law
is presumed legal and in effect. The Executive Branch has no room but to execute, it
cannot abolish the same since the power to repeal or abolish the existing law lies
within the Legislative branch. The Judiciary’s function is to interpret the law. Simply
put, to the legislative branch of government, through Congress, belongs the power to
make laws; to the executive branch of government, through the President, belongs
the power to enforce laws; and to the judicial branch of government, through the
Court, belongs the power to interpret laws.
In the case, the Court reiterated its ruling 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 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.
Applied to the case the Pork Barrel System operates in such manner 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 which runs counter in the ruling
mentioned in the next preceding paragraph.
The Court pronounced that the power to appropriate must be exercised only through
legislation is clear from Section 29, 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."
In PDAF the 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 thus, the Executive is bereft of exercising
its veto power under the principle of checks and balance.
The Court in its decision rendered the Pork Barrel System and Priority Development
Assistance Fund" (PDAF) as unconstitutional.