Pork Barrel Case President

8/12/2019 Pork Barrel Case President

1/52

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 208566 November 19, 2013

GRECO ANTONIOUS BEA B. BE!GICA "OSE M. #I!!EGAS "R. "OSE !. GON$A!E$ REUBEN M.

ABANTE %&' (UINTIN PAREES SAN IEGO,Petitioners,vs.

)ONORAB!E E*ECUTI#E SECRETAR+ PA(UITO N. OC)OA "R. SECRETAR+ O BUGET AN

MANAGEMENT !ORENCIO B. ABA, NATIONA! TREASURER ROSA!IA #. E !EON SENATE O

T)E P)I!IPPINES re-ree&/e' b RAN!IN M. RI!ON m 4%-%4/ % SENATE PRESIENT %&'

)OUSE O REPRESENTATI#ES re-ree&/e' b E!ICIANO S. BE!MONTE, "R. & 4%-%4/ %

SPEAER O T)E )OUSE,Respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

G.R. No. 20893

SOCIA! "USTICE SOCIET+ S"S7 PRESIENT SAMSON S. A!CANTARA,Petitioner,

vs.

)ONORAB!E RAN!IN M. RI!ON & 4%-%4/ % SENATE PRESIENT %&' )ONORAB!EE!ICIANO S. BE!MONTE, "R., & 4%-%4/ % SPEAER O T)E )OUSE O

REPRESENTATI#ES, Respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

G.R. No. 209251

PERITO M. NEPOMUCENO, ormer M%orBo%4, M%r&':e ormer Prov&4%; Bo%r' Member

Prov&4e o< M%r&':e,Petitioner,

vs.

PRESIENT BENIGNO SIMEON C. A(UINO III=%&' SECRETAR+ !ORENCIO BUTC) ABA,

EPARTMENT O BUGET AN MANAGEMENT,Respondents.

D E C ! " N

PER!ASBERNABE, J.:

#Experience is the oracle of truth.#1

-$a%es Madison

Before the Court are consolidated petitions2 ta&en under Rule '( of the Rules of Court, all of )hich assail the

constitutionalit* of the Por& Barrel !*ste%. Due to the co%plexit* of the sub+ect %atter, the Court shall heretofore

discuss the s*ste%s conceptual underpinnins before detailin the particulars of the constitutional challene.

he /acts

. Por& Barrel0 1eneral Concept.

#Por& Barrel# is political parlance of A%erican -Enlish oriin. 32istoricall*, its usae %a* be traced to the

deradin ritual of rollin out a barrel stuffed )ith por& to a %ultitude of blac& slaves )ho )ould cast theirfa%ished bodies into the porcine feast to assuae their huner )ith %orsels co%in fro% the enerosit* of

their )ell-fed %aster.4his practice )as later co%pared to the actions of A%erican leislators in tr*in to

direct federal budets in favor of their districts.53hile the advent of refrieration has %ade the actual por&

barrel obsolete, it persists in reference to political bills that #brin ho%e the bacon# to a leislators district

and constituents.6n a %ore technical sense, #Por& Barrel# refers to an appropriation of overn%ent spendin

%eant for locali4ed pro+ects and secured solel* or pri%aril* to brin %one* to a representative5s

district.7!o%e scholars on the sub+ect further use it to refer to leislative control of local appropriations.8

n the Philippines, #Por& Barrel# has been co%%onl* referred to as lu%p-su%, discretionar* funds of

Me%bers of the 6eislature,9althouh, as )ill be later discussed, its usae )ould evolve in reference to
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt1


2/52

certain funds of the Executive.

. 2istor* of Conressional Por& Barrel in the Philippines.

A. Pre-Martial 6a) Era 789::-89;:??,10or the Public 3or&s Act of 89::, is considered11as the earliest for% of

#Conressional Por& Barrel# in the Philippines since the utili4ation of the funds appropriated

therein )ere sub+ected to post-enact%ent leislator approval. Particularl*, in the area of fundrelease, !ection =12provides that the su%s appropriated for certain public )or&s

pro+ects13#shall be distributed x x x sub+ect to the approval of a +oint co%%ittee elected b* the

!enate and the 2ouse of Representatives. #he co%%ittee fro% each 2ouse %a* also authori4e

one of its %e%bers to approve the distribution %ade b* the !ecretar* of Co%%erce and

Co%%unications.#14Also, in the area of fund realin%ent, the sa%e section provides that the

said secretar*, #)ith the approval of said +oint co%%ittee, or of the authori4ed %e%bers thereof,

%a*, for the purposes of said distribution, transfer unexpended portions of an* ite% of

appropriation under this Act to an* other ite% hereunder.#

n 89(>, it has been docu%ented15that post-enact%ent leislator participation broadened fro%

the areas of fund release and realin%ent to the area of pro+ect identification. Durin that *ear,

the %echanics of the public )or&s act )as %odified to the extent that the discretion of choosin

pro+ects )as transferred fro% the !ecretar* of Co%%erce and Co%%unications to leislators.#/or the first ti%e, the la) carried a list of pro+ects selected b* Me%bers of Conress, the*

bein the representatives of the people, either on their o)n account or b* consultation )ith

local officials or civil leaders.#16Durin this period, the por& barrel process co%%enced )ith

local overn%ent councils, civil roups, and individuals appealin to Conress%en or !enators

for pro+ects. Petitions that )ere acco%%odated for%ed part of a leislators allocation, and the

a%ount each leislator )ould eventuall* et is deter%ined in a caucus convened b* the %a+orit*.

he a%ount )as then interated into the ad%inistration bill prepared b* the Depart%ent of

Public 3or&s and Co%%unications. hereafter, the !enate and the 2ouse of Representatives

added their o)n provisions to the bill until it )as sined into la) b* the President @ the Public

3or&s Act.17n the 89'>s, ho)ever, por& barrel leislation reportedl* ceased in vie) of the

stale%ate bet)een the 2ouse of Representatives and the !enate.18

B. Martial 6a) Era 789;:-89'>,>>>.>>. hereafter, asse%bl*%en )ould

co%%unicate their pro+ect preferences to the Ministr* of Budet and Manae%ent for approval.

hen, the said %inistr* )ould release the allocation papers to the Ministr* of 6ocal

1overn%ents, )hich )ould, in turn, issue the chec&s to the cit* or %unicipal treasurers in the

asse%bl*%ans localit*. t has been further reported that #Conressional Por& Barrel# pro+ects

under the !6DP also bean to cover not onl* public )or&s pro+ects, or so- called #hard

pro+ects#, but also #soft pro+ects#,21or non-public )or&s pro+ects such as those )hich )ould fall

under the cateories of, a%on others, education, health and livelihood.22

C. Post-Martial 6a) Era0

Cora4on Co+uanco Auino Ad%inistration 789'-899:


3/52

After the ED!A People Po)er Revolution in 89' and the restoration of Philippine de%ocrac*,

#Conressional Por& Barrel# )as revived in the for% of the #Mindanao Develop%ent /und# and

the #isa*as Develop%ent /und# )hich )ere created )ith lu%p-su% appropriations of P?>

Million and P:?> Million, respectivel*, for the fundin of develop%ent pro+ects in the

Mindanao and isa*as areas in 899. t has been docu%ented 23that the cla%or raised b* the

!enators and the 6u4on leislators for a si%ilar fundin, pro%pted the creation of the

#Countr*)ide Develop%ent /und# 7CD/< )hich )as interated into the 899> 1AA24)ith an

initial fundin ofP:.= Billion to cover #s%all local infrastructure and other priorit* co%%unit*pro+ects.#

nder the 1AAs for the *ears 8998 and 899:, 25CD/ funds )ere, )ith the approval of the

President, to be released directl* to the i%ple%entin aencies but #sub+ect to the sub%ission of

the reuired list of pro+ects and activities.#Althouh the 1AAs fro% 899> to 899: )ere silent as

to the a%ounts of allocations of the individual leislators, as )ell as their participation in the

identification of pro+ects, it has been reported26that b* 899:, Representatives )ere

receivinP8:.( Million each in CD/ funds, )hile !enators )ere receivin P8 Million each,

)ithout an* li%itation or ualification, and that the* could identif* an* &ind of pro+ect, fro%

hard or infrastructure pro+ects such as roads, brides, and buildins to #soft pro+ects# such as

textboo&s, %edicines, and scholarships.27

D. /idel alde4 Ra%os 7Ra%os< Ad%inistration 7899:-899 Million.

n 899?,30899(,31and 899',32the 1AAs contained the sa%e provisions on pro+ect

identification and fund release as found in the 899= CD/ Article. n addition, ho)ever, the

Depart%ent of Budet and Manae%ent 7DBM< )as directed to sub%it reports to the !enate

Co%%ittee on /inance and the 2ouse Co%%ittee on Appropriations on the releases %ade fro%

the funds.33

nder the 899;34CD/ Article, Me%bers of Conress and the ice-President, in consultation

)ith the i%ple%entin aenc* concerned, )ere directed to sub%it to the DBM the list of (> of

pro+ects to be funded fro% their respective CD/ allocations )hich shall be dul* endorsed b* 7a )as to be sub%itted )ithin six 7'< %onths thereafter. he sa%e article also stated that the

pro+ect list, )hich )ould be published b* the DBM,35#shall be the basis for the release of

funds# and that #no funds appropriated herein shall be disbursed for pro+ects not included in the

list herein reuired.#

he follo)in *ear, or in 899,36the foreoin provisions reardin the reuired lists and

endorse%ents )ere reproduced, except that the publication of the pro+ect list )as no loner

reuired as the list itself sufficed for the release of CD/ /unds.

he CD/ )as not, ho)ever, the lone for% of #Conressional Por& Barrel# at that ti%e. "ther

for%s of #Conressional Por& Barrel# )ere reportedl* fashioned and inserted into the 1AA

7called #Conressional nsertions# or #Cs#< in order to perpetuate the ad %inistrations political

aenda.37t has been articulated that since Cs #for%ed part and parcel of the budets of

executive depart%ents, the* )ere not easil* identifiable and )ere thus harder to %onitor.#
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt37


4/52

Nonetheless, the la)%a&ers the%selves as )ell as the finance and budet officials of the

i%ple%entin aencies, as )ell as the DBM, purportedl* &ne) about the insertions.38Exa%ples

of these Cs are the Depart%ent of Education 7DepEd< !chool Buildin /und, the Conressional

nitiative Allocations, the Public 3or&s /und, the El NiGo /und, and the Povert* Alleviation

/und.39he allocations for the !chool Buildin /und, particularl*, Hshall be %ade upon prior

consultation )ith the representative of the leislative district concerned.I40!i%ilarl*, the

leislators had the po)er to direct ho), )here and )hen these appropriations )ere to be spent.41

E. $oseph E+ercito Estrada 7Estrada< Ad%inistration 7899-:>>8>>46that the #Priorit* Develop%ent Assistance /und# 7PDA/< appeared in

the 1AA. he reuire%ent of #prior consultation )ith the respective Representative of the

District# before PDA/ funds )ere directl* released to the i%ple%entin aenc* concerned )as

explicitl* stated in the :>>> PDA/ Article. Moreover, realin%ent of funds to an* expense

cateor* )as expressl* allo)ed, )ith the sole condition that no a%ount shall be used to fund

personal services and other personnel benefits.47he succeedin PDA/ provisions re%ained the

sa%e in vie) of the re-enact%ent48of the :>>> 1AA for the *ear :>>8.

/. 1loria Macapaal-Arro*o 7Arro*o< Ad%inistration 7:>>8-:>8>>:49PDA/ Article )as brief and straihtfor)ard as it %erel* contained a sinle special

provision orderin the release of the funds directl* to the i%ple%entin aenc* or local

overn%ent unit concerned, )ithout further ualifications. he follo)in *ear, :>>=,50the sa%e

sinle provision )as present, )ith si%pl* an expansion of purpose and express authorit* to

realin. Nevertheless, the provisions in the :>>= budets of the Depart%ent of Public 3or&s and

2ih)a*s517DP32< and the DepEd52reuired prior consultation )ith Me%bers of Conress

on the aspects of i%ple%entation deleation and pro+ect list sub%ission, respectivel*. n :>>?,the :>>= 1AA )as re-enacted.53

n :>>(,54the PDA/ Article provided that the PDA/ shall be used #to fund priorit* prora%s

and pro+ects under the ten point aenda of the national overn%ent and shall be released directl*

to the i%ple%entin aencies.# t also introduced the prora% %enu concept,55)hich is

essentiall* a list of eneral prora%s and i%ple%entin aencies fro% )hich a particular PDA/

pro+ect %a* be subseuentl* chosen b* the identif*in authorit*. he :>>( 1AA )as re-

enacted56in :>>' and hence, operated on the sa%e bases. n si%ilar reard, the prora% %enu

concept )as consistentl* interated into the :>>;,57:>>,58:>>9,59and :>8>601AAs.

extuall*, the PDA/ Articles fro% :>>: to :>8> )ere silent )ith respect to the specific a%ounts

allocated for the individual leislators, as )ell as their participation in the proposal andidentification of PDA/ pro+ects to be funded. n contrast to the PDA/ Articles, ho)ever, the

provisions under the DepEd !chool Buildin Prora% and the DP32 budet, si%ilar to its

predecessors, explicitl* reuired prior consultation )ith the concerned Me%ber of

Conress61anent certain aspects of pro+ect i%ple%entation.

!inificantl*, it )as durin this era that provisions )hich allo)ed for%al participation of non-

overn%ental orani4ations 7N1"< in the i%ple%entation of overn%ent pro+ects )ere

introduced. n the !upple%ental Budet for :>>', )ith respect to the appropriation for school

buildins, N1"s )ere, b* la), encouraed to participate. /or such purpose, the la) stated that
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt61


5/52

#the a%ount of at least P:(> Million of the P(>> Million allotted for the construction and

co%pletion of school buildins shall be %ade available to N1"s includin the /ederation of

/ilipino-Chinese Cha%bers of Co%%erce and ndustr*, nc. for its #"peration Barrio !chool#

prora%, )ith capabilit* and proven trac& records in the construction of public school buildins

x x x.#62he sa%e allocation )as %ade available to N1"s in the :>>; and :>>9 1AAs under

the DepEd Budet.63Also, it )as in :>>; that the 1overn%ent Procure%ent Polic*

Board6471PPB< issued Resolution No. 8:-:>>; dated $une :9, :>>; 71PPB Resolution 8:-

:>>;8>-Present8870PDA/

Article included an express state%ent on lu%p-su% a%ounts allocated for individual leislators

and the ice-President0 Representatives )ere iven P;> Million each, bro&en do)n into P?>

Million for #hard pro+ects# and P=> Million for #soft pro+ects#F )hile P:>> Million )as iven to

each !enator as )ell as the ice-President, )ith a P8>> Million allocation each for #hard# and

#soft pro+ects.# 6i&e)ise, a provision on realin%ent of funds )as included, but )ith theualification that it %a* be allo)ed onl* once. he sa%e provision also allo)ed the !ecretaries

of Education, 2ealth, !ocial 3elfare and Develop%ent, nterior and 6ocal 1overn%ent,

Environ%ent and Natural Resources, Ener*, and Public 3or&s and 2ih)a*s to realin PDA/

/unds, )ith the further conditions that0 7a< realin%ent is )ithin the sa%e i%ple%entin unit

and sa%e pro+ect cateor* as the oriinal pro+ect, for infrastructure pro+ectsF 7b< allot%ent

released has not *et been obliated for the oriinal scope of )or&, and 7c< the reuest for

realin%ent is )ith the concurrence of the leislator concerned.71

n the :>8:72and :>8=73PDA/ Articles, it is stated that the #identification of pro+ects andJor

desination of beneficiaries shall confor% to the priorit* list, standard or desin prepared b*

each i%ple%entin aenc* 7priorit* list reuire%ent< x x x.# 2o)ever, as practiced, it )ould

still be the individual leislator )ho )ould choose and identif* the pro+ect fro% the said priorit*list.74

Provisions on leislator allocations75as )ell as fund realin%ent76)ere included in the :>8:

and :>8= PDA/ ArticlesF but the allocation for the ice-President, )hich )as peed at P:>>

Million in the :>88 1AA, had been deleted. n addition, the :>8= PDA/ Article no) allo)ed

61s to be identified as i%ple%entin aencies if the* have the technical capabilit* to

i%ple%ent the pro+ects.776eislators )ere also allo)ed to identif* prora%sJpro+ects, except for

assistance to indient patients and scholarships, outside of his leislative district provided that

he secures the )ritten concurrence of the leislator of the intended outside-district, endorsed b*

the !pea&er of the 2ouse.78/inall*, an* realin%ent of PDA/ funds, %odification and revision

of pro+ect identification, as )ell as reuests for release of funds, )ere all reuired to be

favorabl* endorsed b* the 2ouse Co%%ittee on Appropriations and the !enate Co%%ittee on

/inance, as the case %a* be.79

. 2istor* of Presidential Por& Barrel in the Philippines.

3hile the ter% #Por& Barrel# has been t*picall* associated )ith lu%p-su%, discretionar* funds of Me%bers

of Conress, the present cases and the recent controversies on the %atter have, ho)ever, sho)n that the

ter%s usae has expanded to include certain funds of the President such as the Mala%pa*a /unds and the

Presidential !ocial /und.

"n the one hand, the Mala%pa*a /unds )as created as a special fund under !ection 80of Presidential

Decree No. 7PD< 98>,81 issued b* then President /erdinand E. Marcos 7Marcos< on March ::, 89;'. n
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt62http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt62http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt63http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt64http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt65http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt66http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt66http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt66http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt67http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt67http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt68http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt69http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt70http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt70http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt71http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt72http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt72http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt73http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt74http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt75http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt75http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt76http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt76http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt77http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt78http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt78http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt78http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt79http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt79http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt80http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt81http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt62http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt63http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt64http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt65http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt66http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt67http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt68http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt69http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt70http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt71http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt72http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt73http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt74http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt75http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt76http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt77http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt78http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt79http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt80http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt81


6/52

enactin the said la), Marcos reconi4ed the need to set up a special fund to help intensif*, strenthen, and

consolidate overn%ent efforts relatin to the exploration, exploitation, and develop%ent of indienous

ener* resources vital to econo%ic ro)th.82Due to the ener*-related activities of the overn%ent in the

Mala%pa*a natural as field in Pala)an, or the #Mala%pa*a Deep 3ater 1as-to-Po)er Pro+ect#,83the special

fund created under PD 98> has been currentl* labeled as Mala%pa*a /unds.

"n the other hand the Presidential !ocial /und )as created under !ection 8:, itle 84of PD 8'9,85or the

Charter of the Philippine A%use%ent and 1a%in Corporation 7PA1C"R= 7CoA Report


7/52

76P>; to :>>91AAs.

K nfrastructure pro+ects )ere constructed on private lots )ithout these havin been turned over tothe overn%ent.

K !inificant a%ounts )ere released to i%ple%entin aencies )ithout the latters endorse%ent and)ithout considerin their %andated functions, ad%inistrative and technical capabilities to i%ple%ent

pro+ects.

K %ple%entation of %ost livelihood pro+ects )as not underta&en b* the i%ple%entin aenciesthe%selves but b* N1"s endorsed b* the proponent leislators to )hich the /unds )ere transferred.

K he funds )ere transferred to the N1"s in spite of the absence of an* appropriation la) orordinance.

K !election of the N1"s )ere not co%pliant )ith la) and reulations.

K Eiht*-)o 7:< N1"s entrusted )ith i%ple%entation of seven hundred sevent* t)o 7;;:8= PDA/ Article and all other Conressional Por& Barrel 6a)s si%ilar thereto are

unconstitutional considerin that the* violate the principles ofJconstitutional provisions on 7a< separation of po)ersF7b< non-deleabilit* of leislative po)erF 7c< chec&s and balancesF 7d< accountabilit*F 7e< political d*nastiesF and 7f,116relatin to the Mala%pa*a /unds, and 7b< #to finance the priorit* infrastructure develop%ent

pro+ects and to finance the restoration of da%aed or destro*ed facilities due to cala%ities, as %a* be directed and

authori4ed b* the "ffice of the President of the Philippines# under !ection 8: of PD 8'9, as a%ended b* PD 899=,

relatin to the Presidential !ocial /und, are unconstitutional insofar as the* constitute undue deleations of leislative

po)er.

hese %ain issues shall be resolved in the order that the* have been stated. n addition, the Court shall also tac&le

certain ancillar* issues as pro%pted b* the present cases.

he Courts Rulin

he petitions are partl* ranted.

. Procedural ssues.

he prevailin rule in constitutional litiation is that no uestion involvin the constitutionalit* or validit* of a la) or

overn%ental act %a* be heard and decided b* the Court unless there is co%pliance )ith the leal reuisites for

+udicial inuir*,117na%el*0 7a< there %ust be an actual case or controvers* callin for the exercise of +udicial po)erF

7b< the person challenin the act %ust have the standin to uestion the validit* of the sub+ect act or issuanceF 7c< the

uestion of constitutionalit* %ust be raised at the earliest opportunit* F and 7d< the issue of constitutionalit* %ust be

the ver* lis %ota of the case.118"f these reuisites, case la) states that the first t)o are the %ost i%portant 119and,

therefore, shall be discussed forth)ith.

A. Existence of an Actual Case or Controvers*.

B* constitutional fiat, +udicial po)er operates onl* )hen there is an actual case or controvers*.120his is e%bodied in

!ection 8, Article of the 89; Constitution )hich pertinentl* states that #+udicial po)er includes the dut* of the

courts of +ustice to settle actual controversies involvin rihts )hich are leall* de%andable and enforceable x x x.#

$urisprudence provides that an actual case or controvers* is one )hich #involves a conflict of leal rihts, an assertion

of opposite leal clai%s, susceptible of +udicial resolution as distinuished fro% a h*pothetical or abstract difference

or dispute.121n other )ords, #there %ust be a contrariet* of leal rihts that can be interpreted and enforced on the

basis of existin la) and +urisprudence.#122 Related to the reuire%ent of an actual case or controvers* is the

reuire%ent of #ripeness,# %eanin that the uestions raised for constitutional scrutin* are alread* ripe for

ad+udication. #A uestion is ripe for ad+udication )hen the act bein challened has had a direct adverse effect on the

individual challenin it. t is a prereuisite that so%ethin had then been acco%plished or perfor%ed b* either branch

before a court %a* co%e into the picture, and the petitioner %ust allee the existence of an i%%ediate or threatened

in+ur* to itself as a result of the challened action.#123#3ithal, courts )ill decline to pass upon constitutional issuesthrouh advisor* opinions, bereft as the* are of authorit* to resolve h*pothetical or %oot uestions.#124

Based on these principles, the Court finds that there exists an actual and +usticiable controvers* in these cases.

he reuire%ent of contrariet* of leal rihts is clearl* satisfied b* the antaonistic positions of the parties on the

constitutionalit* of the #Por& Barrel !*ste%.# Also, the uestions in these consolidated cases are ripe for ad+udication

since the challened funds and the provisions allo)in for their utili4ation @ such as the :>8= 1AA for the PDA/, PD

98> for the Mala%pa*a /unds and PD 8'9, as a%ended b* PD 899=, for the Presidential !ocial /und @ are currentl*

existin and operationalF hence, there exists an i%%ediate or threatened in+ur* to petitioners as a result of the

unconstitutional use of these public funds.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt114http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt115http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt116http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt117http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt118http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt119http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt120http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt121http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt121http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt122http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt123http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt124http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt114http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt115http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt116http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt117http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt118http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt119http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt120http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt121http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt122http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt123http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt124


10/52

As for the PDA/, the Court %ust dispel the notion that the issues related thereto had been rendered %oot and

acade%ic b* the refor%s underta&en b* respondents. A case beco%es %oot )hen there is no %ore actual controvers*

bet)een the parties or no useful purpose can be served in passin upon the %erits.125Differin fro% this description,

the Court observes that respondents proposed line-ite% budetin sche%e )ould not ter%inate the controvers* nor

di%inish the useful purpose for its resolution since said refor% is eared to)ards the :>8? budet, and not the :>8=

PDA/ Article )hich, bein a distinct sub+ect %atter, re%ains leall* effective and existin. Neither )ill the

Presidents declaration that he had alread* #abolished the PDA/# render the issues on PDA/ %oot precisel* because

the Executive branch of overn%ent has no constitutional authorit* to nullif* or annul its leal existence. B*constitutional desin, the annul%ent or nullification of a la) %a* be done either b* Conress, throuh the passae of

a repealin la), or b* the Court, throuh a declaration of unconstitutionalit*. nstructive on this point is the follo)in

exchane bet)een Associate $ustice Antonio . Carpio 7$ustice Carpio< and the !olicitor 1eneral durin the "ral

Aru%ents0126

$ustice Carpio0 he President has ta&en an oath to faithfull* execute the la),127correctO !olicitor 1eneral $ardele4a0

es, our 2onor.

$ustice Carpio0 And so the President cannot refuse to i%ple%ent the 1eneral Appropriations Act, correctO

!olicitor 1eneral $ardele4a0 3ell, that is our ans)er, our 2onor. n the case, for exa%ple of the PDA/, the President

has a dut* to execute the la)s but in the face of the outrae over PDA/, the President )as sa*in, # a% not sure that

)ill continue the release of the soft pro+ects,# and that started, our 2onor. No), )hether or not that Q 7interrupted8= 1AA, as Conressional Por& Barrel since it is, inter alia, a

post-enact%ent %easure that allo)s individual leislators to )ield a collective po)erF160and

!econd, there is the Presidential Por& Barrel )hich is herein defined as a &ind of lu%p-su%, discretionar* fund )hich

allo)s the President to deter%ine the %anner of its utili4ation. /or reasons earlier stated,161the Court shall deli%it the

use of such ter% to refer onl* to the Mala%pa*a /unds and the Presidential !ocial /und.

3ith these definitions in %ind, the Court shall no) proceed to discuss the substantive issues of these cases.

B. !ubstantive ssues on the Conressional Por& Barrel.8. !eparation of Po)ers.

a. !tate%ent of Principle.

he principle of separation of po)ers refers to the constitutional de%arcation of the three funda%ental po)ers of

overn%ent. n the celebrated )ords of $ustice 6aurel in Anara v. Electoral Co%%ission, 162it %eans that the

#Constitution has bloc&ed out )ith deft stro&es and in bold lines, allot%ent of po)er to the executive, the leislative

and the +udicial depart%ents of the overn%ent.#163o the leislative branch of overn%ent, throuh

Conress,164belons the po)er to %a&e la)sF to the executive branch of overn%ent, throuh the

President,165belons the po)er to enforce la)sF and to the +udicial branch of overn%ent, throuh the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt155http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt156http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt156http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt157http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt157http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt158http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt159http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt159http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt160http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt161http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt161http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt162http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt162http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt163http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt163http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt164http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt164http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt165http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt165http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt155http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt156http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt157http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt158http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt159http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt160http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt161http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt162http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt163http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt164http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt165


15/52

Court,166belons the po)er to interpret la)s. Because the three reat po)ers have been, b* constitutional desin,

ordained in this respect, #each depart%ent of the overn%ent has exclusive coni4ance of %atters )ithin its

+urisdiction, and is supre%e )ithin its o)n sphere.#167hus, #the leislature has no authorit* to execute or construe

the la), the executive has no authorit* to %a&e or construe the la), and the +udiciar* has no po)er to %a&e or execute

the la).#168he principle of separation of po)ers and its concepts of autono%* and independence ste% fro% the

notion that the po)ers of overn%ent %ust be divided to avoid concentration of these po)ers in an* one branchF the

division, it is hoped, )ould avoid an* sinle branch fro% lordin its po)er over the other branches or the

citi4enr*.169

o achieve this purpose, the divided po)er %ust be )ielded b* co-eual branches of overn%ent that areeuall* capable of independent action in exercisin their respective %andates. 6ac& of independence )ould result in

the inabilit* of one branch of overn%ent to chec& the arbitrar* or self-interest assertions of another or others.170

Broadl* spea&in, there is a violation of the separation of po)ers principle )hen one branch of overn%ent undul*

encroaches on the do%ain of another. ! !upre%e Court decisions instruct that the principle of separation of po)ers

%a* be violated in t)o 7:< )a*s0 firstl*, #one branch %a* interfere i%per%issibl* )ith the others perfor%ance of its

constitutionall* assined function#F171and #alternativel*, the doctrine %a* be violated )hen one branch assu%es a

function that %ore properl* is entrusted to another.#172n other )ords, there is a violation of the principle )hen there

is i%per%issible 7a< interference )ith andJor 7b< assu%ption of another depart%ents functions.

he enforce%ent of the national budet, as pri%aril* contained in the 1AA, is indisputabl* a function both

constitutionall* assined and properl* entrusted to the Executive branch of overn%ent. n 1uinona, $r. v. 2on.

Caraue17371uinona, $r.


16/52

b. Application.

n these cases, petitioners sub%it that the Conressional Por& Barrel @ a%on others, the :>8= PDA/ Article @

#)rec&s the assin%ent of responsibilities bet)een the political branches# as it is desined to allo) individual

leislators to interfere #)a* past the ti%e it should have ceased# or, particularl*, #after the 1AA is passed.# 179he*

state that the findins and reco%%endations in the CoA Report provide #an illustration of ho) absolute and definitive

the po)er of leislators )ield over pro+ect i%ple%entation in co%plete violation of the constitutional principle of

separation of po)ers.#180/urther, the* point out that the Court in the Philconsa case onl* allo)ed the CD/ to exist on

the condition that individual leislators li%ited their role to reco%%endin pro+ects and not if the* actuall* dictatetheir i%ple%entation.181

/or their part, respondents counter that the separations of po)ers principle has not been violated since the President

%aintains #ulti%ate authorit* to control the execution of the 1AA and that he #retains the final discretion to re+ect# the leislators proposals.182he* %aintain that the Court, in Philconsa, #upheld the constitutionalit* of the po)er of

%e%bers of Conress to propose and identif* pro+ects so lon as such proposal and identification are

reco%%endator*.#183As such, the* clai% that #ever*thin in the !pecial Provisions Sof the :>8= PDA/ Article

follo)s the Philconsa fra%e)or&, and hence, re%ains constitutional.#184

he Court rules in favor of petitioners.

As %a* be observed fro% its leal histor*, the definin feature of all for%s of Conressional Por& Barrel )ould be the

authorit* of leislators to participate in the post-enact%ent phases of pro+ect i%ple%entation.

At its core, leislators @ %a* it be throuh pro+ect lists, 185prior consultations186or prora% %enus187@ have been

consistentl* accorded post-enact%ent authorit* to identif* the pro+ects the* desire to be funded throuh various

Conressional Por& Barrel allocations. nder the :>8= PDA/ Article, the statutor* authorit* of leislators to identif*

pro+ects post-1AA %a* be construed fro% the i%port of !pecial Provisions 8 to = as )ell as the second pararaph of

!pecial Provision ?. o elucidate, !pecial Provision 8 e%bodies the prora% %enu feature )hich, as evinced fro%

past PDA/ Articles, allo)s individual leislators to identif* PDA/ pro+ects for as lon as the identified pro+ect falls

under a eneral prora% listed in the said %enu. Relatedl*, !pecial Provision : provides that the i%ple%entin

aencies shall, )ithin 9> da*s fro% the 1AA is passed, sub%it to Conress a %ore detailed priorit* list, standard or

desin prepared and sub%itted b* i%ple%entin aencies fro% )hich the leislator %a* %a&e his choice. he sa%e

provision further authori4es leislators to identif* PDA/ pro+ects outside his district for as lon as the representative

of the district concerned concurs in )ritin. Mean)hile, !pecial Provision = clarifies that PDA/ pro+ects refer to

#pro+ects to be identified b* leislators#188and thereunder provides the allocation li%it for the total a%ount of pro+ects

identified b* each leislator. /inall*, pararaph : of !pecial Provision ? reuires that an* %odification and revision ofthe pro+ect identification #shall be sub%itted to the 2ouse Co%%ittee on Appropriations and the !enate Co%%ittee on

/inance for favorable endorse%ent to the DBM or the i%ple%entin aenc*, as the case %a* be.# /ro% the foreoin

special provisions, it cannot be seriousl* doubted that leislators have been accorded post-enact%ent authorit* to

identif* PDA/ pro+ects.

Aside fro% the area of pro+ect identification, leislators have also been accorded post-enact%ent authorit* in the areas

of fund release and realin%ent. nder the :>8= PDA/ Article, the statutor* authorit* of leislators to participate in

the area of fund release throuh conressional co%%ittees is contained in !pecial Provision ( )hich explicitl* states

that #all reuest for release of funds shall be supported b* the docu%ents prescribed under !pecial Provision No. 8

and favorabl* endorsed b* 2ouse Co%%ittee on Appropriations and the !enate Co%%ittee on /inance, as the case

%a* be#F )hile their statutor* authorit* to participate in the area of fund realin%ent is contained in0 first , pararaph

:, !pecial Provision ?189)hich explicitl* state s, a%on others, that #an* realin%ent of funds shall be sub%itted to

the 2ouse Co%%ittee on Appropriations and the !enate Co%%ittee on /inance for favorable endorse%ent to the DBMor the i%ple%entin aenc*, as the case %a* be F and, second , pararaph 8, also of !pecial Provision ? )hich authori4es the #!ecretaries of Ariculture, Education, Ener*, nterior and 6ocal 1overn%ent, 6abor and

E%plo*%ent, Public 3or&s and 2ih)a*s, !ocial 3elfare and Develop%ent and rade and ndustr* 190x x x to

approve realin%ent fro% one pro+ectJscope to another )ithin the allot%ent received fro% this /und, sub+ect to a%on

others 7iii< the reuest is )ith the concurrence of the leislator concerned.#

Clearl*, these post-enact%ent %easures )hich overn the areas of pro+ect identification, fund release and fund

realin%ent are not related to functions of conressional oversiht and, hence, allo) leislators to intervene andJor

assu%e duties that properl* belon to the sphere of budet execution. ndeed, b* virtue of the foreoin, leislators

have been, in one for% or another, authori4ed to participate in @ as 1uinona, $r. puts it @ #the various operational
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt179http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt180http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt181http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt182http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt183http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt184http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt185http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt186http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt187http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt188http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt189http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt189http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt190http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt179http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt180http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt181http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt182http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt183http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt184http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt185http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt186http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt187http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt188http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt189http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt190


17/52

aspects of budetin,# includin #the evaluation of )or& and financial plans for individual activities# and the

#reulation and release of funds# in violation of the separation of po)ers principle. he funda%ental rule, as

cateoricall* articulated in Aba&ada, cannot be overstated @ fro% the %o%ent the la) beco%es effective, an*

provision of la) that e%po)ers Conress or an* of its %e%bers to pla* an* role in the i%ple%entation or enforce%ent

of the la) violates the principle of separation of po)ers and is thus unconstitutional. 191hat the said authorit* is

treated as %erel* reco%%endator* in nature does not alter its unconstitutional tenor since the prohibition, to repeat,

covers an* role in the i%ple%entation or enforce%ent of the la). o)ards this end, the Court %ust therefore abandon

its rulin in Philconsa )hich sanctioned the conduct of leislator identification on the uise that the sa%e is %erel*reco%%endator* and, as such, respondents reliance on the sa%e falters altoether.

Besides, it %ust be pointed out that respondents have nonetheless failed to substantiate their position that the

identification authorit* of leislators is onl* of reco%%endator* i%port. Luite the contrar*, respondents @ throuh the

state%ents of the !olicitor 1eneral durin the "ral Aru%ents @ have ad%itted that the identification of the leislator

constitutes a %andator* reuire%ent before his PDA/ can be tapped as a fundin source, thereb* hihlihtin the

indispensabilit* of the said act to the entire budet execution process0192

$ustice Bernabe0 No), )ithout the individual leislators identification of the pro+ect, can the PDA/ of the leislator

be utili4edO

!olicitor 1eneral $ardele4a0 No, our 2onor.

$ustice Bernabe0 t cannotO

!olicitor 1eneral $ardele4a0 t cannotQ 7interrupted8= PDA/

provisions did )as to codif* in one section all the past practice that had been done since 8998. n a certain sense, )e

should be than&ful that the* are all no) in the PDA/ !pecial Provisions. x x x 7E%phasis and underscorin supplied8= PDA/ Article, as )ell as all other for%s of
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt194http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt194http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt195http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt196http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt196http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt196http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt197http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt198http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt199http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt199http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt200http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt201http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt201http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt202http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt194http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt195http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt196http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt197http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt198http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt199http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt200http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt201http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt202


19/52

Conressional Por& Barrel )hich contain the si%ilar leislative identification feature as herein discussed, as

unconstitutional.

=. Chec&s and Balances.

a. !tate%ent of PrincipleF te%-eto Po)er.

he fact that the three reat po)ers of overn%ent are intended to be &ept separate and distinct does not %ean that

the* are absolutel* unrestrained and independent of each other. he Constitution has also provided for an elaborate

s*ste% of chec&s and balances to secure coordination in the )or&ins of the various depart%ents of theovern%ent.203

A pri%e exa%ple of a constitutional chec& and balance )ould be the Presidents po)er to veto an ite% )ritten into an

appropriation, revenue or tariff bill sub%itted to hi% b* Conress for approval throuh a process &no)n as #bill

present%ent.# he Presidents ite%-veto po)er is found in !ection :;7:


20/52

for para%eters of appropriation.

/urther, it is sinificant to point out that an ite% of appropriation %ust be an ite% characteri4ed b* sinular

correspondence @ %eanin an allocation of a specified sinular a%ount for a specified sinular purpose, other)ise

&no)n as a #line-ite%.#211his treat%ent not onl* allo)s the ite% to be consistent )ith its definition as a #specific

appropriation of %one*# but also ensures that the President %a* discernibl* veto the sa%e. Based on the foreoin

for%ulation, the existin Cala%it* /und, Continent /und and the ntellience /und, bein appropriations )hich state

a specified a%ount for a specific purpose, )ould then be considered as #line- ite%# appropriations )hich are rihtfull*

sub+ect to ite% veto. 6i&e)ise, it %ust be observed that an appropriation %a* be validl* apportioned into co%ponentpercentaes or valuesF ho)ever, it is crucial that each percentae or value %ust be allocated for its o)n correspondin

purpose for such co%ponent to be considered as a proper line-ite%. Moreover, as $ustice Carpio correctl* pointed out,

a valid appropriation %a* even have several related purposes that are b* accountin and budetin practice considered

as one purpose, e.., M""E 7%aintenance and other operatin expenses


21/52

allocation )ithout &no)in the specific pro+ects of the leislators, )hich %a* or %a* not be consistent )ith his

national aenda and 7b< re+ectin the )hole PDA/ to the detri%ent of all other leislators )ith leiti%ate pro+ects.215

Moreover, even )ithout its post-enact%ent leislative identification feature, the :>8= PDA/ Article )ould re%ain

constitutionall* fla)ed since it )ould then operate as a prohibited for% of lu%p-su% appropriation above-

characteri4ed. n particular, the lu%p-su% a%ount of P:?.;9 Billion )ould be treated as a %ere fundin source

allotted for %ultiple purposes of spendin, i.e., scholarships, %edical %issions, assistance to indients, preservation of

historical %aterials, construction of roads, flood control, etc. his setup connotes that the appropriation la) leaves the

actual a%ounts and purposes of the appropriation for further deter%ination and, therefore, does not readil* indicate adiscernible ite% )hich %a* be sub+ect to the Presidents po)er of ite% veto.

n fact, on the accountabilit* side, the sa%e lu%p-su% budetin sche%e has, as the CoA Chairperson rela*s, #li%ited

state auditors fro% obtainin relevant data and infor%ation that )ould aid in %ore strinentl* auditin the utili4ation

of said /unds.#216Accordinl*, she reco%%ends the adoption of a #line b* line budet or a%ount per proposed

prora%, activit* or pro+ect, and per i%ple%entin aenc*.#217

2ence, in vie) of the reasons above-stated, the Court finds the :>8= PDA/ Article, as )ell as all Conressional Por&

Barrel 6a)s of si%ilar operation, to be unconstitutional. hat such budetin s*ste% provides for a reater deree of

flexibilit* to account for future continencies cannot be an excuse to defeat )hat the Constitution reuires. Clearl*,

the first and essential truth of the %atter is that unconstitutional %eans do not +ustif* even co%%endable ends.218

c. Accountabilit*.

Petitioners further relate that the s*ste% under )hich various for%s of Conressional Por& Barrel operate defies public

accountabilit* as it renders Conress incapable of chec&in itself or its Me%bers. n particular, the* point out that the

Conressional Por& Barrel #ives each leislator a direct, financial interest in the s%ooth, speed* passin of the *earl*

budet# )hich turns the% #fro% fiscali4ers# into #financiall*-interested partners.#219he* also clai% that the s*ste%

has an effect on re- election as #the PDA/ excels in self-perpetuation of elective officials.# /inall*, the* add that the

#PDA/ i%pairs the po)er of i%peach%ent# as such #funds are indeed uite useful, to )ell, accelerate the decisions

of senators.#220

he Court arees in part.

he aphoris% fored under !ection 8, Article T of the 89; Constitution, )hich states that #public office is a public

trust,# is an overarchin re%inder that ever* instru%entalit* of overn%ent should exercise their official functions

onl* in accordance )ith the principles of the Constitution )hich e%bodies the para%eters of the peoples trust. he

notion of a public trust connotes accountabilit*,221hence, the various %echanis%s in the Constitution )hich aredesined to exact accountabilit* fro% public officers.

A%on others, an accountabilit* %echanis% )ith )hich the proper expenditure of public funds %a* be chec&ed is the

po)er of conressional oversiht. As %entioned in Aba&ada,222conressional oversiht %a* be perfor%ed either

throuh0 7a< scrutin* based pri%aril* on Conress po)er of appropriation and the budet hearins conducted in

connection )ith it, its po)er to as& heads of depart%ents to appear before and be heard b* either of its 2ouses on an*

%atter pertainin to their depart%ents and its po)er of confir%ationF223or 7b< investiation and %onitorin of the

i%ple%entation of la)s pursuant to the po)er of Conress to conduct inuiries in aid of leislation.224

he Court arees )ith petitioners that certain features e%bedded in so%e for%s of Conressional Por& Barrel, a%on

others the :>8= PDA/ Article, has an effect on conressional oversiht. he fact that individual leislators are iven

post-enact%ent roles in the i%ple%entation of the budet %a&es it difficult for the% to beco%e disinterested

#observers# )hen scrutini4in, investiatin or %onitorin the i%ple%entation of the appropriation la). o a certain

extent, the conduct of oversiht )ould be tainted as said leislators, )ho are vested )ith post-enact%ent authorit*,)ould, in effect, be chec&in on activities in )hich the* the%selves participate. Also, it %ust be pointed out that this

ver* sa%e concept of post-enact%ent authori4ation runs afoul of !ection 8?, Article of the 89; Constitution )hich

provides that0

!ec. 8?. No !enator or Me%ber of the 2ouse of Representatives %a* personall* appear as counsel before an* court of

+ustice or before the Electoral ribunals, or uasi-+udicial and other ad%inistrative bodies. Neither shall he, directl* or

indirectl*, be interested financiall* in an* contract )ith, or in an* franchise or special privilee ranted b* the

1overn%ent, or an* subdivision, aenc*, or instru%entalit* thereof, includin an* overn%ent-o)ned or controlled

corporation, or its subsidiar*, durin his ter% of office. 2e shall not intervene in an* %atter before an* office of the

1overn%ent for his pecuniar* benefit or )here he %a* be called upon to act on account of his office. 7E%phasis
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt215http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt216http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt217http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt218http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt219http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt220http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt221http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt222http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt222http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt223http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt224http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt215http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt216http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt217http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt218http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt219http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt220http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt221http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt222http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt223http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt224


22/52

supplied8= PDA/ Article and other for%s of Conressional

Por& Barrel of si%ilar nature are dee%ed as unconstitutional.

?. Political D*nasties.

"ne of the petitioners sub%its that the Por& Barrel !*ste% enables politicians )ho are %e%bers of political d*nasties

to accu%ulate funds to perpetuate the%selves in po)er, in contravention of !ection :', Article of the 89;

Constitution225)hich states that0

!ec. :'. he !tate shall uarantee eual access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political d*nasties as

%a* be defined b* la). 7E%phasis and underscorin supplied is the creation of an Ener* Develop%ent Board and !ection thereof onl* created a !pecial /und

incidental thereto.237n si%ilar reard, petitioners arue that !ection 8: of PD 8'9 is neither a valid appropriations

la) since the allocation of the Presidential !ocial /und is %erel* incidental to the #pri%ar* and specific# purpose of

PD 8'9 )hich is the a%end%ent of the /ranchise and Po)ers of PA1C"R. 238n vie) of the foreoin, petitioners

suppose that such funds are bein used )ithout an* valid la) allo)in for their proper appropriation in violation of

!ection :978


25/52

leislative intent to appropriate beco%es apparent and, hence, alread* sufficient to satisf* the reuire%ent of an

#appropriation %ade b* la)# under conte%plation of the Constitution.

!ection of PD 98> pertinentl* provides0

!ection . Appropriations. x x x

All fees, revenues and receipts of the Board fro% an* and all sources includin receipts fro% service contracts and

aree%ents such as application and processin fees, sinature bonus, discover* bonus, production bonusF all %one*

collected fro% concessionaires, representin unspent )or& obliations, fines and penalties under the Petroleu% Act of89?9F as )ell as the overn%ent share representin ro*alties, rentals, production share on service contracts and si%ilar

pa*%ents on the exploration, develop%ent and exploitation of ener* resources, shall for% part of a !pecial /und to

be used to finance ener* resource develop%ent and exploitation prora%s and pro+ects of the overn%ent and for

such other purposes as %a* be hereafter directed b* the President. 7E%phases supplied if the

areate ross earnins be less than P8(>,>>>,>>>.>> shall be set aside and shall accrue to the 1eneral /und to

finance the priorit* infrastructure develop%ent pro+ects and to finance the restoration of da%aed or destro*ed

facilities due to cala%ities, as %a* be directed and authori4ed b* the "ffice of the President of the Philippines.

7E%phases supplied, )hich creates a !pecial /und co%prised of #all fees, revenues, and receipts of the Ener* Develop%ent Board

fro% an* and all sources# 7a deter%inable a%ount< #to be used to finance ener* resource develop%ent and

exploitation prora%s and pro+ects of the overn%ent and for such other purposes as %a* be hereafter directed b* the

President# 7a specified public purpose, if the areate ross earnins be less than P8(>,>>>,>>>.>># 7also a

deter%inable a%ount< #to finance the priorit* infrastructure develop%ent pro+ects and x x x the restoration of

da%aed or destro*ed facilities due to cala%ities, as %a* be directed and authori4ed b* the "ffice of the President of

the Philippines# 7also a specified public purpose8= PDA/ Article is

not the P:?.;9 Billion allocated for the entire PDA/, but rather the post-enact%ent deter%inations %ade b* the

individual leislators )hich are, to repeat, occurrences outside of the la). rrefraabl*, the :>8= PDA/ Article does

not constitute an #appropriation %ade b* la)# since it, in its truest sense, onl* authori4es individual leislators to

appropriate in violation of the non-deleabilit* principle as afore-discussed.

:. ndue Deleation.

"n a related %atter, petitioners contend that !ection of PD 98> constitutes an undue deleation of leislative po)er

since the phrase #and for such other purposes as %a* be hereafter directed b* the President# ives the President

#unbridled discretion to deter%ine for )hat purpose the funds )ill be used.# 243Respondents, on the other hand, uredthe Court to appl* the principle of e+usde% eneris to the sa%e section and thus, construe the phrase #and for such

other purposes as %a* be hereafter directed b* the President# to refer onl* to other purposes related #to ener*

resource develop%ent and exploitation prora%s and pro+ects of the overn%ent.#244

he Court arees )ith petitioners sub%issions.

3hile the desination of a deter%inate or deter%inable a%ount for a particular public purpose is sufficient for a leal

appropriation to exist, the appropriation la) %ust contain adeuate leislative uidelines if the sa%e la) deleates

rule-%a&in authorit* to the Executive245either for the purpose of 7a< fillin up the details of the la) for its

enforce%ent, &no)n as supple%entar* rule-%a&in, or 7b< ascertainin facts to brin the la) into actual operation,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt243http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt243http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt244http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt245http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt245http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt243http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt244http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt245


26/52

referred to as continent rule-%a&in.246here are t)o 7:< funda%ental tests to ensure that the leislative uidelines

for deleated rule-%a&in are indeed adeuate. he first test is called the #co%pleteness test.# Case la) states that a

la) is co%plete )hen it sets forth therein the polic* to be executed, carried out, or i%ple%ented b* the deleate. "n

the other hand, the second test is called the #sufficient standard test.# $urisprudence holds that a la) la*s do)n a

sufficient standard )hen it provides adeuate uidelines or li%itations in the la) to %ap out the boundaries of the

deleates authorit* and prevent the deleation fro% runnin riot. 247o be sufficient, the standard %ust specif* the

li%its of the deleates authorit*, announce the leislative polic*, and identif* the conditions under )hich it is to be

i%ple%ented.248

n vie) of the foreoin, the Court arees )ith petitioners that the phrase #and for such other purposes as %a* be

hereafter directed b* the President# under !ection of PD 98> constitutes an undue deleation of leislative po)er

insofar as it does not la* do)n a sufficient standard to adeuatel* deter%ine the li%its of the Presidents authorit*

)ith respect to the purpose for )hich the Mala%pa*a /unds %a* be used. As it reads, the said phrase ives the

President )ide latitude to use the Mala%pa*a /unds for an* other purpose he %a* direct and, in effect, allo)s hi% to

unilaterall* appropriate public funds be*ond the purvie) of the la). hat the sub+ect phrase %a* be confined onl* to

#ener* resource develop%ent and exploitation prora%s and pro+ects of the overn%ent# under the principle of

e+usde% eneris, %eanin that the eneral )ord or phrase is to be construed to include @ or be restricted to @ thins

a&in to, rese%blin, or of the sa%e &ind or class as those specificall* %entioned, 249is belied b* three 7=< reasons0

first, the phrase #ener* resource develop%ent and exploitation prora%s and pro+ects of the overn%ent# states a

sinular and eneral class and hence, cannot be treated as a statutor* reference of specific thins fro% )hich the

eneral phrase #for such other purposes# %a* be li%itedF second, the said phrase also exhausts the class it represents,

na%el* ener* develop%ent prora%s of the overn%entF250and, third, the Executive depart%ent has, in fact, used

the Mala%pa*a /unds for non-ener* related purposes under the sub+ect phrase, thereb* contradictin respondents

o)n position that it is li%ited onl* to #ener* resource develop%ent and exploitation prora%s and pro+ects of the

overn%ent.#251hus, )hile !ection of PD 98> %a* have passed the co%pleteness test since the polic* of ener*

develop%ent is clearl* deducible fro% its text, the phrase #and for such other purposes as %a* be hereafter directed b*

the President# under the sa%e provision of la) should nonetheless be stric&en do)n as unconstitutional as it lies

independentl* unfettered b* an* sufficient standard of the deleatin la). his not)ithstandin, it %ust be

underscored that the rest of !ection , insofar as it allo)s for the use of the Mala%pa*a /unds #to finance ener*

resource develop%ent and exploitation prora%s and pro+ects of the overn%ent,# re%ains leall* effective and

subsistin. ruth be told, the declared unconstitutionalit* of the afore%entioned phrase is but an assurance that the

Mala%pa*a /unds )ould be used @ as it should be used @ onl* in accordance )ith the avo)ed purpose and intention

of PD 98>.

As for the Presidential !ocial /und, the Court ta&es +udicial notice of the fact that !ection 8: of PD 8'9 has alread*

been a%ended b* PD 899= )hich thus %oots the parties sub%issions on the sa%e.252Nevertheless, since the

a%endator* provision %a* be readil* exa%ined under the current para%eters of discussion, the Court proceeds to

resolve its constitutionalit*.

Pri%aril*, !ection 8: of PD 8'9, as a%ended b* PD 899=, indicates that the Presidential !ocial /und %a* be used

#to first, finance the priorit* infrastructure develop%ent pro+ects and second, to finance the restoration of da%aed or

destro*ed facilities due to cala%ities, as %a* be directed and authori4ed b* the "ffice of the President of the

Philippines.# he Court finds that )hile the second indicated purpose adeuatel* curtails the authorit* of the President

to spend the Presidential !ocial /und onl* for restoration purposes )hich arise fro% cala%ities, the first indicated

purpose, ho)ever, ives hi% carte blanche authorit* to use the sa%e fund for an* infrastructure pro+ect he %a* so

deter%ine as a #priorit*#. eril*, the la) does not suppl* a definition of #priorit* in frastructure develop%ent pro+ects#

and hence, leaves the President )ithout an* uideline to construe the sa%e. o note, the deli%itation of a pro+ect as

one of #infrastructure# is too broad of a classification since the said ter% could pertain to an* &ind of facilit*. his%a* be deduced fro% its lexicoraphic definition as follo)s0 #the underl*in fra%e)or& of a s*ste%, especiall* public

services and facilities 7such as hih)a*s, schools, brides, se)ers, and )ater-s*ste%s< needed to support co%%erce as

)ell as econo%ic and residential develop%ent.#253n fine, the phrase #to finance the priorit* infrastructure

develop%ent pro+ects# %ust be stric&en do)n as unconstitutional since @ si%ilar to the above-assailed provision under

!ection of PD 98> @ it lies independentl* unfettered b* an* sufficient standard of the deleatin la). As the* are

severable, all other provisions of !ection 8: of PD 8'9, as a%ended b* PD 899=, re%ains leall* effective and

subsistin.

D. Ancillar* Pra*ers. 8.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt246http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt247http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt248http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt249http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt250http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt250http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt251http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt251http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt252http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt253http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt253http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt246http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt247http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt248http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt249http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt250http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt251http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt252http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt253


27/52

Petitioners Pra*er to be /urnished 6ists and Detailed Reports.

Aside fro% see&in the Court to declare the Por& Barrel !*ste% unconstitutional @ as the Court did so in the context

of its pronounce%ents %ade in this Decision @ petitioners euall* pra* that the Executive !ecretar* andJor the DBM

be ordered to release to the CoA and to the public0 7a< #the co%plete scheduleJlist of leislators )ho have availed of

their PDA/ and 6P fro% the *ears :>>= to :>8=, specif*in the use of the funds, the pro+ect or activit* and the

recipient entities or individuals, and all pertinent data thereto# 7PDA/ se !cheduleJ6ist


28/52

petitioners have failed to establish a #a )ell-defined, clear and certain leal riht# to be furnished b* the Executive

!ecretar* andJor the DBM of their reuested PDA/ se !cheduleJ6ist and Presidential Por& se Report. Neither did

petitioners assert an* la) or ad%inistrative issuance )hich )ould for% the bases of the latters dut* to furnish the%

)ith the docu%ents reuested. 3hile petitioners pra* that said infor%ation be euall* released to the CoA, it %ust be

pointed out that the CoA has not been i%pleaded as a part* to these cases nor has it filed an* petition before the Court

to be allo)ed access to or to co%pel the release of an* official docu%ent relevant to the conduct of its audit

investiations. 3hile the Court reconi4es that the infor%ation reuested is a %atter of sinificant public concern,

ho)ever, if onl* to ensure that the para%eters of disclosure are properl* foisted and so as not to undul* ha%per theeuall* i%portant interests of the overn%ent, it is constrained to den* petitioners pra*er on this score, )ithout

pre+udice to a proper %anda%us case )hich the*, or even the CoA, %a* choose to pursue throuh a separate petition.

t bears clarification that the Courts denial herein should onl* cover petitioners plea to be furnished )ith such

scheduleJlist and report and not in an* )a* den* the%, or the eneral public, access to official docu%ents )hich are

alread* existin and of public record. !ub+ect to reasonable reulation and absent an* valid statutor* prohibition,

access to these docu%ents should not be proscribed. hus, in al%onte, )hile the Court denied the application for

%anda%us to)ards the preparation of the list reuested b* petitioners therein, it nonetheless allo)ed access to the

docu%ents souht for b* the latter, sub+ect, ho)ever, to the custodians reasonable reulations,vi4.0259

n fine, petitioners are entitled to access to the docu%ents evidencin loans ranted b* the 1!!, sub+ect to reasonable

reulations that the latter %a* pro%ulate relatin to the %anner and hours of exa%ination, to the end that da%ae to

or loss of the records %a* be avoided, that undue interference )ith the duties of the custodian of the records %a* be

prevented and that the riht of other persons entitled to inspect the records %a* be insured 6easpi v. Civil !erviceCo%%ission, supra at p. (=, uotin !ubido v. "4aeta, > Phil. ==, =;. he petition, as to the second and third

alternative acts souht to be done b* petitioners, is %eritorious.

2o)ever, the sa%e cannot be said )ith reard to the first act souht b* petitioners, i.e.,

#to furnish petitioners the list of the na%es of the Batasan Pa%bansa %e%bers belonin to the ND" and PDP-

6aban )ho )ere able to secure clean loans i%%ediatel* before the /ebruar* ; election thru the intercessionJ%arinal

note of the then /irst 6ad* %elda Marcos.#

he Court, therefore, applies the sa%e treat%ent here.

:. Petitioners Pra*er to nclude Matters in Conressional Deliberations.

Petitioners further see& that the Court #order the inclusion in budetar* deliberations )ith the Conress of all

presentl*, off-budet, lu%p su%, discretionar* funds includin but not li%ited to, proceeds fro% the x x x Mala%pa*a/und, re%ittances fro% the PA1C"R and the PC!" or the Executives !ocial /unds.#260

!uffice it to state that the above-stated relief souht b* petitioners covers a %atter )hich is enerall* left to the

preroative of the political branches of overn%ent. 2ence, lest the Court itself overreach, it %ust euall* den* their

pra*er on this score.

=. Respondents Pra*er to 6ift R"F Conseuential Effects of Decision.

he final issue to be resolved ste%s fro% the interpretation accorded b* the DBM to the concept of released funds. n

response to the Courts !epte%ber 8>, :>8= R" that en+oined the release of the re%ainin PDA/ allocated for the

*ear :>8=, the DBM issued Circular 6etter No. :>8=- dated !epte%ber :;, :>8= 7DBM Circular :>8=-< )hich

pertinentl* reads as follo)s0

=.> Nonetheless, PDA/ pro+ects funded under the / :>8= 1AA, )here a !pecial Allot%ent Release "rder 7!AR", :>8= R".

Petitioners ta&e issue )ith the foreoin circular, aruin that #the issuance of the !AR" does not *et involve the

release of funds under the PDA/, as release is onl* triered b* the issuance of a Notice of Cash Allocation

S7NCA


29/52

explain that once a !AR" has been issued and obliated b* the i%ple%entin aenc* concerned, the PDA/ funds

covered b* the sa%e are alread* #be*ond the reach of the R" because the* cannot be considered as re%ainin

PDA/.# he* conclude that this is a reasonable interpretation of the R" b* the DBM. 262

he Court arees )ith petitioners in part.

At the outset, it %ust be observed that the issue of )hether or not the Courts !epte%ber 8>, :>8= R" should be

lifted is a %atter rendered %oot b* the present Decision. he unconstitutionalit* of the :>8= PDA/ Article as declared

herein has the conseuential effect of convertin the te%porar* in+unction into a per%anent one. 2ence, fro% thepro%ulation of this Decision, the release of the re%ainin PDA/ funds for :>8=, a%on others, is no) per%anentl*

en+oined.

he propriet* of the DBMs interpretation of the concept of #release# %ust, nevertheless, be resolved as it has a

practical i%pact on the execution of the current Decision. n particular, the Court %ust resolve the issue of )hether or

not PDA/ funds covered b* obliated !AR"s, at the ti%e this Decision is pro%ulated, %a* still be disbursed

follo)in the DBMs interpretation in DBM Circular :>8=-.

"n this score, the Court arees )ith petitioners posturin for the funda%ental reason that funds covered b* an

obliated !AR" are *et to be #released# under leal conte%plation. A !AR", as defined b* the DBM itself in its

)ebsite, is #aspecific authorit* issued to identified aencies to incur obliations not exceedin a iven a%ount durin

a specified period for the purpose indicated. t shall cover expenditures the release of )hich is sub+ect to co%pliance

)ith specific la)s or reulations, or is sub+ect to separate approval or clearance b* co%petent authorit*.#263

Based on this definition, it %a* be leaned that a !AR" onl* evinces the existence of an obliation and not the

directive to pa*. Practicall* spea&in, the !AR" does not have the direct and i%%ediate effect of placin public funds

be*ond the control of the disbursin authorit*. n fact, a !AR" %a* even be )ithdra)n under certain circu%stances

)hich )ill prevent the actual release of funds. "n the other hand, the actual release of funds is brouht about b* the

issuance of the NCA,264)hich is subseuent to the issuance of a !AR". As %a* be deter%ined fro% the state%ents

of the DBM representative durin the "ral Aru%ents0265

$ustice Bernabe0 s the notice of allocation issued si%ultaneousl* )ith the !AR"O

x x x x

Att*. Rui40 t co%es after. he !AR", our 2onor, is onl* the o sinal for the aencies to obliate or to enter into

co%%it%ents. he NCA, our 2onor, is alread* the o sinal to the treasur* for us to be able to pa* or to liuidate the

a%ounts obliated in the !AR"F so it co%es after. x x x he NCA, our 2onor, is the o sinal for the MD! for the

authori4ed overn%ent-disbursin ban&s to, therefore, pa* the pa*ees dependin on the pro+ects or pro+ects coveredb* the !AR" and the NCA.

$ustice Bernabe0 Are there instances that !AR"s are cancelled or revo&edO

Att*. Rui40 our 2onor, )ould li&e to instead sub%it that there are instances that the !AR"s issued are )ithdra)n

b* the DBM.

$ustice Bernabe0 he* are )ithdra)nO

Att*. Rui40 es, our 2onor x x x. 7E%phases and underscorin supplied8= PDA/ funds )hich are onl* covered b* obliated !AR"s, and )ithout

an* correspondin NCAs issued, %ust, at the ti%e of this Decisions pro%u

Documents

Pork Barrel Case President