Article X 1

Case No.: 11
BELGICA V OCHOA
G.R. No. 208566
19 November 2013 | Justice Perlas-Bernabe

I.

FACTS
Before the Court are consolidated petitions taken under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, all of which assail the
constitutionality of the Pork Barrel System.
The 1987 Constitution which read as follows:
ARTICLE II
Sec. 25. The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments
.
ARTICLE X
Sec. 2. The territorial and political subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy.
Sec. 3. The Congress shall enact a local government code which shall provide for a more responsive and
accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization with effective mechanisms
of recall, initiative, and referendum, allocate among the different local government units their powers,
responsibilities, and resources, and provide for the qualifications, election, appointment and removal, term,
salaries, powers and functions and duties of local officials, and all other matters relating to the organization and
operation of the local units.

Pursuant thereto, Congress enacted RA 7160, otherwise known as the "Local Government Code of 1991"
(LGC), wherein the policy on local autonomy had been more specifically explicated as follows:
Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy.
(a) It is hereby declared the policy of the State that the territorial and political subdivisions of the State shall enjoy
genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain their fullest development as self-reliant
communities and make them more effective partners in the attainment of national goals. Toward this end, the State
shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of
decentralization whereby local government units shall be given more powers, authority, responsibilities, and
resources. The process of decentralization shall proceed from the National Government to the local government
units.
xxxx
(c) It is likewise the policy of the State to require all national agencies and offices to conduct periodic
consultations with appropriate local government units, nongovernmental and peoples organizations, and other
concerned sectors of the community before any project or program is implemented in their respective jurisdictions.
(Emphases and underscoring supplied)
The above-quoted provisions of the Constitution and the LGC reveal the policy of the State to empower local
government units (LGUs) to develop and ultimately, become self-sustaining and effective contributors to the
national economy. As explained by the Court in Philippine Gamefowl Commission v. Intermediate Appellate
Court:228

The Constitution is committed to the policy of local autonomy which is intended to provide the needed
impetus and encouragement to the development of our local political subdivisions as "self - reliant
communities." The vitalization of local governments will enable their inhabitants to fully exploit their
resources and more important, imbue them with a deepened sense of involvement in public affairs as members
of the body politic.
In the cases at bar, petitioners contend that the Congressional Pork Barrel goes against the constitutional
principles on local autonomy since it allows district representatives, who are national officers, to substitute
their judgments in utilizing public funds for local development.
Drawing strength from this pronouncement, previous legislators justified its existence by stating that "the
relatively small projects implemented under the Congressional Pork Barrel complement and link the national
development goals to the countryside and grassroots as well as to depressed areas which are overlooked by
central agencies which are preoccupied with mega-projects. Similarly, in his August 23, 2013 speech on the
"abolition" of PDAF and budgetary reforms, President Aquino mentioned that the Congressional Pork Barrel
was originally established for a worthy goal, which is to enable the representatives to identify projects for
communities that the LGU concerned cannot afford.

II.

ISSUE(S) & RATIO

WON
Whether or not the 2013 PDAF Article and all other Congressional Pork Barrel Laws similar
thereto are unconstitutional considering that they violate the principles of/constitutional provisions on
local autonomy? YES
The concept of legislator control underlying the CDF and PDAF conflicts with the functions of the various
Local Development Councils (LDCs) which are already legally mandated to "assist the corresponding
sanggunian in setting the direction of economic and social development, and coordinating development efforts
within its territorial jurisdiction."
Considering that LDCs are instrumentalities whose functions are essentially geared towards managing
local affairs, their programs, policies and resolutions should not be overridden nor duplicated by
individual legislators, who are national officers that have no law-making authority except only when
acting as a body. The undermining effect on local autonomy caused by the post-enactment authority
conferred to the latter was succinctly put by petitioners in the following wise:
With PDAF, a Congressman can simply bypass the local development council and initiate projects on his own, and even take
sole credit for its execution. Indeed, this type of personality-driven project identification has not only contributed little to the
overall development of the district, but has even contributed to "further weakening infrastructure planning and coordination
efforts of the government."

Thus, insofar as individual legislators are authorized to intervene in purely local matters and thereby
subvert genuine local autonomy, the 2013 PDAF Article as well as all other similar forms of
Congressional Pork Barrel is deemed unconstitutional.
III.

FALLO
WHEREFORE, the petitions are PARTLY GRANTED.

IV.

SEPARATE OPINION (if any)