Meaning of Pork Barrel

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; 160 and

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,161 the Court shall delimit the use
of such term to refer only to the Malampaya Funds and the Presidential Social Fund.

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

Constitutional Question:

1.  Separation of Powers. The principle of separation of powers refers to the

constitutional demarcation of the three fundamental powers of government.

there is a violation of the separation of powers principle when one branch of

government unduly encroaches on the domain of another.

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. 

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.

The foregoing cardinal postulates were definitively enunciated in Abakada where

the Court held that “[f]rom 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.”

2. Non–delegability of Legislative Power.

legislative power shall be exclusively exercised by the body to which the Constitution
has conferred the same

 it is clear that only 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

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.

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.