1. A.) Who are allowed to re-align/transfer budgets already approved by Congress and under what circumstances?

Article VI Section 25 of the Constitution states: No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President,
Senate President, House Speaker, Chief Justice and heads of constitutional commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item
in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.
1) When the realignment is within the same implementing unit and same project category as the original project, 2) allotment released
has not yet been obligated for the original scope of work, and 3) the request for realignment is within the concurrence of legislator
concerned.

B.) What is the Disbursement Acceleration Fund? Why was it declared unconstitutional? Explain.
It is a special budget allocated to accelerate government project without Congress or Senates approval. It is a lump sum
appropriation in the national budget designed to allow legislators to fund small-scale infrastructure or community projects which fell
outside the scope of the national infrastructure program, which was often restricted to large infrastructure items.
It was declared unconstitutional because as provided under the Araullo case:
-you cannot declare savings before the end of the year
-The president cannot use to finance or augment expenditures of an item not existing in the Budget authorization
-Cross-border transfer of a savings is not allowed

2. A.) What is meant by the operative fact doctrine? How was it applied in the case of Belgica vs. Executive Secretary?; B.) Cite 3 principles
in consti law that SC used in declaring PDAF as unconstitutional.

A) The operative fact doctrine exhorts the recognition that until the judiciary, in an appropriate case, declares invalidity of a certain
legislative or executive act, such act is presumed to be constitutional therefore, entitled to obedience and respect and should be
properly enforced and complied with. This principle is applied in such a way accepting that the DAP could no longer be undone as the
DAP funding could have generated positive results such as construction of roads, bridges, homes for the homeless, hospitals,
classrooms, etc. Not applying the operative fact doctrine would require physical undoing and destruction of these infrastructures-a
considerable waste. The application of the doctrine, however, does not exonerate the proponents and implementors of the DAP-
unless it is established that they have acted in good faith.

B) As held in Belgica case, the PDAF violates the separation of powers doctrine since as a rule, the budgeting power lies in
Congress. It regulates the release of funds (power of the purse). The executive, on the other hand, implements the laws this
includes the GAA to which the PDAF is a part of. Only the executive may implement the law but under the pork barrel system, whats
happening was that, after the GAA, itself a law, was enacted, the legislators themselves dictate as to which projects their PDAF funds
should be allocated to a clear act of implementing the law they enacted a violation of the principle of separation of powers. The
post-enactment measures governing the areas of project identification, fund release and fund realignment are not related to the
functions of congressional oversight and hence, allow legislators to intervene and/or assume duties that properly belong to the sphere
of budget execution. Indeed in this case, the legislators have been, in one form or another participating in various operational aspects
of budgeting including the evaluation of work and financial plans for individual activities and regulation and release of funds are in
violating of the separation of powers doctrine.

The PDAF as well violated the non-delegation of legislative power. It is held in Belgica case that the 2013 PDAF Article conferring
post-enactment identification authority to individual legislators is violative of principle of non-delegation of legislative power since the
said legislators are allowed to individually exercise the power of appropriation which is and should be lodged in Congress. It is
provided in Sec. 29, Article 6 that no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.
Through the PDAF, individual legislators are given a personal lump-sum fund from which they are able to 1) dictate how much from
such fund would go to a 2) specific project or beneficiary that they themselves determine. As these two acts comprise exercise of
power of appropriation, it may be said that the legislators have been conferred the power to legislate which the Constitution does not
allow.

Lastly, it violates the Checks and balances principle. As held in Belgica case, the PDAF violates the checks and balances principle
since by approving the fund it eliminates the power of the President to veto. As the petitioners in the case accurately pointed out, the
PDAF system forces the President to decide between 1) accepting the entire PDAF allocation without knowing the specific projects of
legislators, which is inconsistent with his national agenda and 2) rejecting the whole PDAF to the detriment of all other legislators with
legitimate projects. The PDAF system connotes that the appropriation law leaves the actual amounts and purposes of appropriation
for further determination which should have been subjected to the Presidents power to veto.

3. A.) What is the rationale for the rule that a delegated power cannot be further delegated? Are there exceptions? B.) Distinguish Question
Hour from Legislative Inquiry?

A) A delegated power cannot be further delegated creating a trust upon the said delegated office and further delegating it to another
office breaches the said trust. By delegating the said power to said instrumentality or agency, a trust to the said instrumentality or
agencys own judgment has been created. There are exceptions however for this principle:
-Delegation of tariff powers to the President
-Delegation of emergency powers to the President
-Delegation to people at large
-Delegation to local governments
-Delegation to administrative bodies
B)
Question Hour (Sec. 22) Legislative Inquiry (Sec. 21)
*As to persons who may appear: Only a department head *As to persons who may appear: Any person

*As to who conducts the investigation: Entire body

*As to who conducts the investigation: Committees

*As to subject-matter: Matters related to department only *As to subject matter: Any matter for the purpose of legislation