THIS IS A CONSOLIDATED CASE. BEAR WITH ME SOBRANG HABA NG ORIG NITO. THE CASE ALSO DISCUSSED MOOTNESS, STARE DECISES, POLITICAL QUESTION, AND RES JUDICATA, ALL OF WHICH WERE NOT UNDER THE TOPIC OUTLINE. THE CASE WAS BROKEN DOWN INTO SUBSTANTIVE MATTERS AND PROCEDURAL MATTERS SIMILAR TO THE OUTLINE OF ATTY LOANZON SO I JUST FOLLOWED THE FLOW. THE CASE ALSO DISCUSSES SUBSTANTIVE MATTER REGARDING THE DAP IN THE END. G.R. No. 20!""
No#$%&$' (), 20(*
GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA JOSE M. VILLEGAS JR. JOSE L. GONZALEZ REUBEN M. ABANTE +QUINTIN PAREDES SAN DIEGO, Petitioners, vs. HONORABLE EECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA JR. SECRETARY OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT FLORENCIO B. ABAD, NATIONAL TREASURER ROSALIA V. DE LEON SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES '$/'$$1$- & FRANKLIN M. DRILON % 34 5+/+541 + SENATE PRESIDENT +- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES '$/'$$1$- & FELICIANO S. BELMONTE, JR. 4 34 5+/+541 + SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, Respondents. x----- ------ ------- -----x G.R. No. 206)* SOCI SOCIA AL JUST JUSTIC ICE E SOCI SOCIET ETY Y 7SJS 7SJS88 PRE PRESIDE SIDENT NT SAMS SAMSON ON S. ALCA LCANTA NTARA, RA, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE FRANKLIN M. DRILON 4 34 5+/+541 + SENATE PRESIDENT +- HONORABLE FELICIA ICIAN NO S. BELMONTE, NTE, JR., JR., 4 34 5+/+5 +/+541 41 + SPEAK EAKER OF THE HOUS OUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Respondents. x----- ------ ------- -----x G.R. No. 20)2!( PEDRITO M. NEPOMUCENO, Fo'%$' M+o'9Bo+5, M+'4-:;:$ Fo'%$' P'o#454+< Bo+'- M$%&$' 9P'o#45$ o= M+'4-:;:$, Petitioner, vs. PRESIDE PRESIDENT NT BENIGNO BENIGNO SIMEON SIMEON C. AQUINO AQUINO III> +- SECRETA SECRETARY RY FLOREN FLORENCIO CIO BUTCH BUTCH ABAD, ABAD, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, M ANAGEMENT, Respondents. Respondents. Background Before the Court are consolidated petitions 2 taken under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, all of which assail the constitutionalit of the Pork Barrel !ste". #$%&! '! &$( P)R* B%RR(+ !!&(
/.
$istoricall, its usage "a 0e traced to the degrading ritual of rolling out a 0arrel stuffed with pork to a "ultitude of 0lack slaves who would cast their fa"ished 0odies into the porcine feast to assuage their hunger with "orsels co"ing fro" the generosit of their well-fed "aster. Presentl, relating to the govern"ent use, it refers to an appropriation of govern"ent spending "eant for locali1ed proects and secured solel or pri"aril to 0ring "one to a representative3s district. 'n the Philippines, 4Pork Barrel4 has 0een co""onl referred to as lu"p-su", discretionar funds of e"0ers of the +egislature, although, as will 0e later discussed, its usage would evolve in reference to certain funds of the (xecutive. Petitioners define the ter" 4Pork Barrel !ste"4 as the 4collusion 0etween the +egislative and (xecutive 0ranches of govern"ent to accu"ulate lu"p-su" pu0lic funds in their offices with unchecked discretionar powers to deter"ine its distri0ution as political largesse.
P'o5$-:'+< M+11$' o= 13$ PDAF acts7 /.
%ugust 28, 29/: - Petitioner !a"son !. %lcantara, President of the !ocial ;ustice !ociet, filed a Petition for Prohi0ition of even date under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court <%lcantara Petition=, a. seeking that the 4Pork Barrel !ste"4 0e declared unconstitutional, and a writ of prohi0ition 0e issued per"anentl restraining respondents ranklin . >rilon and eliciano !. Bel"onte, ;r., in their respective capacities as the incu"0ent !enate President and !peaker of the $ouse of Representatives, fro" further taking an steps to enact legislation appropriating funds 2. !epte"0er :, 29/: - petitioners ?reco %ntonious Beda B. Belgica, ;ose +. ?on1ale1, Reu0en . %0ante, @uintin Paredes !an >iego
%, and the (xecutiveEs lu"p-su", discretionar funds, such as the ala"paa unds and the Presidential !ocial und,/9D 0e declared unconstitutional and null and void for 0eing acts constituting grave a0use of discretion. :. !epte"0er 5, 29/: - petitioner Pedrito . Fepo"uceno % 0e declared unconstitutional, and a cease and desist order 0e issued restraining President Benigno !i"eon !. %Guino ''' evelop"ent Councils in consultation with the executive depart"ents, such as the >P#$, the >epart"ent of &ouris", the >epart"ent of $ealth, the >epart"ent of &ransportation, and Co""unication and the Fational (cono"ic >evelop"ent %uthorit. H. C)R& R(!P)F!( I 'ssued a resolution consolidating the case, and '!!(> a &R) enoining anone fro" releasing the re"aining P>% funds to Congress 'ssue7 /. 2.
#hether the case can 0e su0ect to ;udicial Review - (! #hether the Petitioners have legal standing to sue - (!
$eld7 /.
Back to 0asics, #hat are the legal reGuisites needed in order that a case "a 0e heard for udicial inGuir a. %, P> /9 for the ala"paa unds and P> /86, as a"ended 0 P> /:, for the Presidential !ocial und I are currentl existing and operationalJ &he present petitions, in fact, have 0een lodged at a ti"e when the sste"Es flaws have never 0efore 0een "agnified. &here is a Guestion raised on the constitutionalit of the provision of P>% in the ?eneral %ppropriations %ct. &his is a usticia0le issue. unctions of ;udicial Review7 Checking I looks into possi0le a0uses of each 0ranch of govern"entJ review of decisions of lower courtsJ +egiti"i1ing I looks into constitutionalit of laws and its applicationJ and !"0olic I looks into issues although the have 0eco"e "oot and acade"ic.
2.
>oes the Petitioner have +ocus !tandi - nless a person is inuriousl affected in an of his constitutional rights 0 the operation of statute or ordinance, he has no standing. i. (! &$( $%A( !&%F>'F?, Clearl, as taxpaers, the possess the reGuisite standing to Guestion the validit of the existing 4Pork Barrel !ste"4 under which the taxes the pa have 0een and continue to 0e utili1ed. 't is undenia0le that petitioners, as taxpaers, are 0ound to suffer fro" the unconstitutional usage of pu0lic funds, if the Court so rules. 'nvaria0l, taxpaers have 0een allowed to sue where there is a clai" that pu0lic funds are illegall dis0ursed or that pu0lic "one is 0eing deflected to an i"proper purpose !)(&$'F? &) &%*( F)&( )F ))&F(!! *%$'& $'F>' &)P'C. PresidentEs declaration that he had alread 4a0olished the P>%4 render the issues on P>% "oot precisel 0ecause the (xecutive 0ranch of govern"ent has no constitutional authorit to nullif or annul its legal
existence. B constitutional design, the annul"ent or nullification of a law "a 0e done either 0 Congress, through the passage of a repealing law, or 0 the Court, through a declaration of unconstitutionalit.
S:&1+14+< M+11$' o 13$ PDAF 'ssues7 /. 2. :. H. 5.
's there a violation of the principle of separation of po wers I (!, P(&'&')F(R #'F 's there a violation of the principle of checks and 0alances in the i"ple"entation of the proects under P>% (! I )A(R!'?$& FC&')F 's there violation of the principle of non-delega0ilit of legislative power - (! 's there a violation of the constitutional provision on political dnast - F) 's there a violation of the constitutional provision on local autono" - (!
$eld7 /. &he principle of separation of powers refers to the constitutional de"arcation of the three funda"ental powers of govern"ent. &hus, 4the legislature has no authorit to execute or construe the law, the executive has no authorit to "ake or construe the law, and the udiciar has no power to "ake or execute the law.4 &he enforce"ent of the national 0udget, as pri"aril contained in the ?%%, is indisputa0l a function 0oth constitutionall assigned and /'o/$'< $1':1$- 1o 13$ E?$5:14#$ &'+53 o= @o#$'%$1. 'n ?uingona, ;r. v. $on. Carague /D: (7 petitioners su0"it that the Congressional Pork Barrel I a"ong others, the 29/: P>% %rticle I 4wrecks the assign"ent of responsi0ilities 0etween the political 0ranches4 as it is designed to allow individual legislators to interfere 4wa past the ti"e it should have ceased4 or, particularl, 4after the ?%% is passed.
R(!P)F>(F& !'>(7 respondents counter that the separations of powers principle has not 0een violated since the President "aintains 4ulti"ate authorit to control the execution of the ?%%‖ and that he 4retains the final discretion to reect4 the legislatorsE proposals. &$( C)R& R+(> 'F %A)R ) P(&'&')F(R its core, legislators have 0een consistentl accorded post-enact"ent authorit
2. Congress "a still exercise its oversight function which is a "echanis" of checks and 0alances that the Constitution itself allows. But it "ust 0e "ade clear that CongressE role "ust 0e confined to "ere oversight. %n post-enact"ent-"easure allowing legislator participation 0eond oversight is 0ereft of an constitutional 0asis and hence, tanta"ount to i"per"issi0le interference andor assu"ption of executive functions. &o a certain extent, the conduct of oversight would 0e tainted as said legislators, who are vested with post-enact"ent authorit, would, in effect, 0e checking on activities in which the the"selves participate. %lso, this ver sa"e concept of post-enact"ent authori1ation runs afoul of !ection /H, %rticle A' of the /8D Constitution which provides that7 LNO% !enator or e"0er of the $ouse of Representatives shall not intervene in an "atter 0efore an office of the ?overn"ent for his pecuniar 0enefit or where he "a 0e called upon to act on account of his office.M %llowing legislators to intervene in the various phases of proect i"ple"entation renders the" suscepti0le to taking undue advantage of their own office. :. &he +egislative effectivel allowed the executive to define the para"eters of the P>% %llocation. ?eneral Rule. &he said legislators are effectivel allowed to individuall exercise the power of appropriation, which I as settled in Philconsa I is lodged in Congress. &hat the power to appropriate "ust 0e exercised onl through legislation is clear fro" !ection 2
(ssentiall, under the 29/: P>% %rticle, individual legislators are given a personal lu"psu" fund fro" which the are a0le to dictate % %rticle authori1es individual legislators to perfor" the sa"e, undou0tedl, said legislators have 0een conferred the power to legislate which the Constitution does not, however, allow. &hus, keeping with the principle of non-delega0ilit of legislative power, the Court here0 declares the 29/: P>% %rticle, as well as all other for"s of Congressional Pork Barrel which contain the si"ilar legislative identification feature as herein discussed, as unconstitutional. H.
!ection 26, %rticle '' of the /8D Constitution is considered as not self-executing due to the Gualifing phrase Las "a 0e defined 0 law.M &herefore, since there appears to 0e no standing law which crstalli1es the polic on political dnasties for enforce"ent, the Court "ust defer fro" ruling on this issue. 'n an event, the a0ove-stated argu"ent on this score is largel speculative since it has not 0een properl de"onstrated how the Pork Barrel !ste" would 0e a0le to propagate political dnasties.
5.
#hen the incu"0ent "e"0ers of Congress dictated which proects would 0e i"ple"ented at the local level without the participation of the local govern"ent units, it violated the essence of local autono" under %rticle of the Constitution. &he Court finds an inherent defect in the sste" which actuall 0elies the avowed intention of L"aking eGual the uneGual.M &he gauge of P>% and C> allocationdivision is 0ased solel on the fact of office, without taking into account the specific interests and peculiarities of the district the legislator represents. %s a result, a district representative of a highl-ur0ani1ed "etropolis gets the sa"e a"ount of funding as a district representative of a far-flung rural province which would 0e relativel LunderdevelopedM co"pared to the for"er. &o add, what rouses graver scrutin is that even !enators and Part-+ist Representatives I and in so"e ears, even the Aice-President I who do not represent an localit, receive funding fro" the Congressional Pork Barrel as well.
S:&1+14#$ I:$ o 13$ P'$4-$14+< Po' B+''$< 'ssues7 /. #as there a Aalid %ppropriationo unds with the ala"paa unds - (! 2. #as there ndue >elegation of Power - (! :. %re the Petitioners entitled to docu"ents pertaining to the P>% - F)
Held: 1. Petitioners preliminarily assail Section 8 of PD 910 and Section 12 of PD1869 (now, amended y PD 199!", w#ic# respecti$ely pro$ide for t#e %alampaya &'nds and t#e Presidential Social &'nd, as in$alid appropriations laws since t#ey do not #a$e t#e primary and speci)c p'rpose of a't#ori*in+ t#e release of p'lic f'nds from t#e ational -reas'ry. Petitioners s'mit t#at Section 8 of PD 910 is not an appropriation law since t#e primary and
speci)c p'rpose of PD 910 is t#e creation of an /ner+y De$elopment oard and Section 8 t#ereof only created a Special &'nd incidental t#ereto. -#e o'rt disa+rees. n appropriation made y law 'nder t#e contemplation of Section 29(1", rticle 34 of t#e 1985 onstit'tion eists w#en a pro$ision of law (a" sets apart a determinate or determinale amo'nt of money and (" allocates t#e same for a partic'lar p'lic p'rpose. -#'s, ased on t#e fore+oin+, t#e o'rt cannot s'stain t#e ar+'ment t#at t#e appropriation m'st e t#e primary and speci)c p'rpose of t#e law in order for a $alid appropriation law to eist. -o reiterate, if a le+al pro$ision desi+nates a determinate or determinale amo'nt of money and allocates t#e same for a partic'lar p'lic p'rpose, t#en t#e le+islati$e intent to appropriate ecomes apparent. 7/ ;DS < =>>-/S %/? @ =&; SP/4&4 PA>4 PA;PS/? 2. 4%P-: The phrase “and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President” under Section 8 of PD 910 constitutes an undue delegation of legislative poer as it does not lay down a s'Bcient standard to adeC'ately determine t#e limits of t#e Presidents a't#ority wit# respect to t#e p'rpose for w#ic# t#e %alampaya &'nds may e 'sed. s it reads, t#e said p#rase +i$es t#e President wide latit'de to 'se t#e %alampaya &'nds for any ot#er p'rpose #e may direct and, in eEect, allows #im to 'nilaterally appropriate p'lic f'nds eyond t#e p'r$iew of t#e law. !. 4n t#ese cases, aside from t#e fact t#at none of t#e petitions are in t#e nat're of mandam's actions, t#e o'rt )nds t#at petitioners #a$e failed to estalis# a a wellFde)ned, clear and certain le+al ri+#t to e f'rnis#ed y t#e /ec'ti$e Secretary andGor t#e D% of t#eir reC'ested PD& Ase Sc#ed'leG>ist and Presidential Por Ase ;eport. eit#er did petitioners assert any law or administrati$e iss'ance w#ic# wo'ld form t#e ases of t#e latterIs d'ty to f'rnis# t#em wit# t#e doc'ments reC'ested. #ile petitioner pray t#at said information e eC'ally released to t#e o, it m'st e pointed o't t#at t#e o #as not een impleaded as a party to t#ese cases nor #as it )led any petition efore t#e o'rt to e allowed access to or to compel t#e release of any oBcial doc'ment rele$ant to t#e cond'ct of its a'dit in$esti+ations. Discussions on the Doctrine of !perative "act
-o eplain, t#e operati$e fact doctrine e#orts t#e reco+nition t#at 'ntil t#e J'diciary, in an appropriate case, declares t#e in$alidity of a certain le+islati$e or eec'ti$e act, s'c# act is pres'med constit'tional and t#'s, entitled to oedience
and respect and s#o'ld e properly enforced and complied wit#. &or t#ese reasons, t#is Decision s#o'ld e #eretofore applied prospecti$ely. #$% &#otice of $ash %llocation' vs S%(! &Special %llotment (elease !rder'
-#e S;, o'r Honor, is only t#e +o si+nal for t#e a+encies to oli+ate or to enter into commitments. -#e , o'r Honor, is already t#e +o si+nal to t#e treas'ry for 's to e ale to pay or to liC'idate t#e amo'nts oli+ated in t#e S;. S;, as de)ned y t#e D% itself in its wesite, is KaLspeci)c a't#ority iss'ed to identi)ed a+encies to inc'r oli+ations not eceedin+ a +i$en amo'nt d'rin+ a speci)ed period for t#e p'rpose indicated. -#'s, 'nless an #as een iss'ed, p'lic f'nds s#o'ld not e treated as f'nds w#ic# #a$e een released.
")#%**+ T,- D)SP!S)T).- P!(T)!# & ) -/P,%S)-D %*(-%D+ T,- )/P!(T%#T (*)#2S 3)T, 4!*D *-TT-(S'
H/;/&;/, t#e petitions are P%(T*+ 2(%#T-D. 4n $iew of t#e constit'tional $iolations disc'ssed in t#is Decision, t#e o'rt #erey declares as #$!#ST)TT)!#%* : (a" t#e entire 201! PD& rticleM (" all le+al pro$isions of past and present on+ressional Por arrel >aws, s'c# as t#e pre$io's PD& and D& rticles and t#e $ario's on+ressional Decision 50 N.;. os. 208O66, 2089! @ 2092O1 4nsertions, w#ic# a't#ori*eGd le+islators < w#et#er indi$id'ally or collecti$ely or+ani*ed into committees < to inter$ene, ass'me or participate in any of t#e $ario's postFenactment sta+es of t#e 'd+et eec'tion, s'c# as 't not limited to t#e areas of proJect identi)cation, modi)cation and re$ision of proJect identi)cation, f'nd release andGor f'nd reali+nment, 'nrelated to t#e power of con+ressional o$ersi+#tM (c" all le+al pro$isions of past and present on+ressional Por arrel >aws, s'c# as t#e pre$io's PD& and D& rticles and t#e $ario's on+ressional 4nsertions, w#ic# conferGred personal, l'mpFs'm allocations to le+islators from w#ic# t#ey are ale to f'nd speci)c proJects w#ic# t#ey t#emsel$es determineM (d" all informal practices of similar import and eEect, w#ic# t#e o'rt similarly deems to e acts of +ra$e a'se of discretion amo'ntin+ to lac or ecess of J'risdictionM and (e" t#e p#rases (1" and for s'c# ot#er p'rposes as may e #ereafter directed y t#e President 'nder Section 8 of Presidential Decree o. 910 and (2" to )nance t#e priority infrastr'ct're de$elopment proJects 'nder Section 12 of Presidential Decree o. 1869, as amended y Presidential Decree o. 199!, for ot# failin+ t#e s'Bcient standard test in $iolation of t#e principle of nonF dele+aility of le+islati$e power. ccordin+ly, t#e o'rtIs temporary inJ'nction dated Septemer 10, 201! is #erey declared to e P-(/%#-#T.
-#'s, t#e dis'rsementGrelease of t#e remainin+ PD& f'nds allocated for t#e year 201!, as well as for all pre$io's years, and t#e f'nds so'rced from (1" t#e %alampaya &'nds 'nder t#e p#rase and for s'c# ot#er p'rposes as may e #ereafter directed y t#e President p'rs'ant to Section 8 of Presidential Decree o. 910, and (2" t#e Presidential Social &'nd 'nder t#e p#rase to )nance t#e priority infrastr'ct're de$elopment proJects p'rs'ant to Section 12 of Presidential Decree o. 1869, as amended y Presidential Decree o. 199!, w#ic# are, at t#e time t#is Decision is prom'l+ated, not co$ered y otice of as# llocations (s" 't only y Special llotment ;elease rders (S;s", w#et#er oli+ated or not, are #erey -#5!)#-D. -#e remainin+ PD& f'nds co$ered y t#is permanent inJ'nction s#all not e dis'rsedGreleased 't instead re$erted to t#e 'nappropriated s'rpl's of t#e +eneral f'nd, w#ile t#e f'nds 'nder t#e %alampaya &'nds and t#e Presidential Social &'nd s#all remain t#erein to e 'tili*ed for t#eir respecti$e special p'rposes not ot#erwise declared as unconstitutional. n t#e ot#er #and, d'e to improper reco'rse and lac of proper s'stantiation, t#e o'rt #erey D-#)-S petitionersI prayer seein+ t#at t#e /ec'ti$e Secretary andGor t#e Department of 'd+et and %ana+ement e ordered to pro$ide t#e p'lic and t#e ommission on 'dit complete listsGsc#ed'les or detailed reports related to t#e a$ailments and 'tili*ation of t#e f'nds s'Ject of t#ese cases. PetitionersI access to oBcial doc'ments already a$ailale and of p'lic record w#ic# are related to t#ese f'nds m'st, #owe$er, not e pro#iited 't merely s'Jected to t#e c'stodianIs reasonale re+'lations or any $alid stat'tory pro#iition on t#e same. -#is Decision 51 N.;. os. 208O66,20896 @ 2092O1 denial is wit#o't preJ'dice to a proper mandam's case w#ic# t#ey or t#e ommission on 'dit may c#oose to p'rs'e t#ro'+# a separate petition. -#e o'rt also D-#)-S petitionersQ prayer to order t#e incl'sion of t#e f'nds s'Ject of t#ese cases in t#e 'd+etary delierations of on+ress as t#e same is a matter left to t#e prero+ati$e of t#e political ranc#es of +o$ernment. &inally, t#e o'rt #erey D)(-$TS all prosec'torial or+ans of t#e +o$ernment to, wit#in t#e o'nds of reasonale dispatc#, in$esti+ate and accordin+ly prosec'te all +o$ernment oBcials andGor pri$ate indi$id'als for possile criminal oEenses related to t#e irre+'lar, improper andGor 'nlawf'l dis'rsementG'tili*ation of all f'nds 'nder t#e Por arrel System.
