BELGICA v.

OCHOA

The main issue in relation to this topic is related to the doctrine of checks and balances. In short does the
Congressional Pork Barrel violate the principle of checks and balances?

 The SC ruled in the affirmative.

 The 1987 Constitution provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to secure coordination
in the workings of the various departments of the government. Each department, though separated is
not absolutely independent with respect to each other.
o EXAMPLE: ART. VI, particularly Section 27 (2) thereofhe 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.
 Going back to our issue, the pork barrel violates the principle of checks and balances; Why:
o Under the 2013 PDAF Article, the amount of P24.79 Billion only appears as a collective allocatio
n limit since the said amount would be further divided 
among individual legislators who would then receive personal lumpsum allocations and could, a
fter the GAA is passed, effectively appropriate PDAF funds based on their own discretion.

o This kind of postenactment legislative identification budgeting system fosters the 
creation of a ―budgetwithin a budget which ruins the prescribed procedure of 
presentment and consequently impairs the President‘s power of item veto.

 In order for the president to properly exercise his item-veto power, there should exist a proper item
which may be the object of veto. Item pertains to "the particulars, the details, the distinct and
severable parts of the appropriation or of the bill. In this case, there is no particular item to veto.

 The post enactment legislative identification forces

the President to decide between (a) accepting the entire PDAF allocation without knowing the specific 
projects of the legislators, which may or may not be consistent with his national agenda and (b) rejecti
ng the whole PDAF to the detrimentof all other legislators with legitimate projects.

 In fact, even without its post-enactment legislative identification feature, the 2013 PDAF Article uncons
titutional since it would then operate as a prohibited form of 
lumpsum appropriation. 

This is because the appropriation law leaves the actual amounts and purposes of the appropriation for 
further determination and, therefore, does not readily indicate a 
particular item which may be subject to the President‘s power of item veto.