1

Download
$Search Full PDF Package Premium
Translate Zandra %
TOOLS

Belgica v Ochoa.docx
Jacob Ballos

! Top 2% " 1461 Views # 5 Pages 1 File ▾

$ Download Full PDF Package Translate %

Original PDF Summary Related

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 in his capacity as
SENATE PRESIDENT, and HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, represented by FELICIANO S.
BELMONTE, JR. in his capacity as SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, respondents.

G.R. No. 208493. November 19, 2013.

SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS) PRESIDENT SAMSON S. ALCANTARA, petitioner, vs.

HONORABLE FRANKLIN M. DRILON, in his capacity as SENATE PRESIDENT, and
HONORABLE FELICIANO S. BELMONTE, JR., in his capacity as SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES, respondents.

G.R. No. 209251. November 19, 2013.

PEDRITO M. NEPOMUCENO, Former Mayor-Boac, Marinduque, Former Provincial Board

Member-Province of Marinduque, petitioner, vs. PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON C.
 AQUINO III** and SECRETARY FLORENCIO “BUTCH” ABAD, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET
 AND MANAGEMENT, respondents. Belgica vs. Ochoa, Jr., 710 SCRA 1, G.R. No. 208566
November 19, 2013

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

FACTS:
The so-called pork barrel system has been around in the Philippines since about 1922.
Pork Barrel is commonly known as the lump-sum, discretionary funds of the members of
the Congress. It underwent several legal designations from “ Congressional Pork Barrel ”
to the latest “Priority Development Assistance Fund ” or PDAF. The allocation for the pork
barrel is integrated in the annual General Appropriations Act  (GAA).
Since 2011, the allocation of the PDAF has been done in the following manner:
a. P70 million: for each member of the lower house; broken down to  – P40 million for
 “hard projects ” (infrastructure projects like roads, buildings, schools, etc.), and P30
million for “soft projects ” (scholarship grants, medical assistance, livelihood programs, IT
development, etc.);
b. P200 million: for each senator; broken down to  –  P100 million for hard projects,
P100 million for soft projects;

c. P200 million: for the Vice-President; broken down to – P100 million for hard projects,
P100 million for soft projects.
The PDAF articles in the GAA do provide for realignment of funds whereby certain
cabinet members may request for the realignment of funds into their department
provided that the request for realignment is approved or concurred by the legislator
concerned.
Presidential Pork Barrel  
The president does have his own source of fund albeit not included in the GAA. The so-
called presidential pork barrel comes from two sources: (a) the Malampaya Funds, from
the Malampaya Gas Project – this has been around since 1976, and (b) the Presidential
Social Fund which is derived from the earnings of PAGCOR  – this has been around since
about 1983.
Pork Barrel Scam Controversy  
Ever since, the pork barrel system has been besieged by allegations of corruption. In July
2013, six whistle blowers, headed by Benhur Luy, exposed that for the last decade, the
corruption in the pork barrel system had been facilitated by Janet Lim Napoles. Napoles
had been helping lawmakers in funneling their pork barrel funds into about 20 bogus
NGO’s (non-government organizations) which would make it appear that government
funds are being used in legit existing projects but are in fact going to “ghost” projects.
 An audit was then conducted by the Commission on Audit and the results thereof
concurred with the exposes of Luy et al.
Motivated by the foregoing, Greco Belgica and several others, filed various petitions
before the Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of the pork barrel system.

ISSUES:
I. Whether or not the congressional pork barrel system is constitutional.
II. Whether or not presidential pork barrel system is constitutional.

HELD:

I.  Congressional pork barrel system is not constitutional

Separation of Powers

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; 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.
The Supreme Court hereby declares the 2013 Priority Development Assistance Fund
(PDAF) Article as well as all other provisions of law which similarly allow legislators to
wield any form of post-enactment authority in the implementation or enforcement of the
budget, unrelated to congressional oversight, as violation of the separation of powers
principle and thus unconstitutional. (Note in the older case of  PHILCONSA vs Enriquez, it
was ruled that pork barrel, then called as CDF or the Countrywide Development Fund,
was constitutional insofar as the legislators only recommend where their pork barrel funds
go).

Checks and Balances

 A prime example of a constitutional check and balance would be the President’s power
to veto an item written into an appropriation, revenue or tariff bill submitted to him by
Congress for approval through a process known as “bill presentment.”  
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. Under such system, how can the president veto the appropriation made by the
legislator if the appropriation is made after the approval of the GAA – again, “Congress
cannot choose a mode of budgeting which effectively renders the constitutionally-given
power of the President useless.”  

Delegation of Powers

 As a rule, the Constitution vests legislative power in Congress alone. (The Constitution
does grant the people legislative power but only insofar as the processes of referendum
and initiative are concerned). That being, legislative power cannot be delegated by
Congress for it cannot delegate further that which was delegated to it by the Constitution.
Exceptions to the rule are:
(i) delegated legislative power to local government units but this shall involve
purely local matters;
(ii) authority of the President to, by law, exercise powers necessary and proper to
carry out a declared national policy in times of war or other national emergency, or
fix within specified limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions as
Congress may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and
wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national
development program of the Government.

In this case, the PDAF articles which allow the individual legislator to identify the projects
to which his PDAF money should go to is a violation of the rule on non-delegability of
legislative power. The power to appropriate funds is solely lodged in Congress (in the two
houses comprising it) collectively and not lodged in the individual members. Further,
nowhere in the exceptions does it state that the Congress can delegate the power to the
individual member of Congress.

Political Questions
The phrase “political question” connotes, in legal parlance, what it means in ordinary
parlance, namely, a question of policy. In other words, in the language of Corpus Juris
Secundum (supra), it refers to “those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be
decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary
authority has been delegated to the Legislature or executive branch of the Governme nt.”
It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular
measure.
The intrinsic constitutionality of the “Pork Barrel System” is not an issue dependent upon
the wisdom of the political branches of government but rather a legal one which the
Constitution itself has commanded the Court to act upon.

In Estrada v. Desierto,142 the expanded concept of judicial power under the 1987
Constitution and its effect on the political question doctrine was explained as follows: 143

To a great degree, the 1987 Constitution has narrowed the reach of the political question
doctrine when it expanded the power of judicial review of this court not only to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable but
also to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of
government. Heretofore, the judiciary has focused on the “thou shalt not’s” of the
Constitution directed against the exercise of its jurisdiction. With the new provision,
however, courts are given a greater prerogative to determine what it can do to prevent
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of government. Clearly, the new provision did not just grant
the Court power of doing nothing.

II.  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:

About Press Blog People Papers Topics Job Board  We're Hiring!  Help Center

Terms Privacy Copyright Academia ©2022