G.R. No.
208566 November 19, 2013 from 2002 to 2010 were silent with respect to the specific amounts allocated for
BELGICA, et al. v. OCHOA JR., et al. Respondents.
(Article VII, Section 1)
FACTS:
This case is consolidated with G.R. No. 208493 and G.R. No. 209251.
I. Pork Barrel: General Concept.
"Pork Barrel" refers to an appropriation of government spending meant for
localized projects and secured solely or primarily to bring money to a
representative's district. In the Philippines, "Pork Barrel" has been commonly
referred to as lump-sum, discretionary funds of Members of the
Legislature, although, as will be later discussed, its usage would evolve in reference
to certain funds of the Executive.
II. History of Congressional Pork Barrel in the Philippines.
a. Pre-Martial Law - Act 3044, or the Public Works Act of 1922, is considered as the
earliest form of "Congressional Pork Barrel" in the Philippines since the utilization of
the funds appropriated therein were subjected to post-enactment legislator
approval.
b. Martial Law Era - the Batasang Pambansa had introduced a new item in the
General Appropriations Act (GAA) called the" Support for Local Development
Projects" (SLDP). Under the SLDP, the practice of giving lump-sum allocations to
individual legislators began, with each assemblyman receiving ₱500,000.00.
c. Post-Martial Law Era (Corazon Aquino Admin.) - "Countrywide Development
Fund" (CDF) was created in which representatives were receiving ₱12.5 Million each
in CDF funds, while Senators were receiving ₱18 Million each.
d. Fidel V. Ramos Admin. - For the first time, the 1993 CDF Article included an
allocation for the Vice-President. As such, Representatives were allocated ₱12.5
Million each in CDF funds, Senators, ₱18 Million each, and the Vice-President, ₱20
Million. Other forms of congressional pork barrel were inserted into GAA including
“Congressional Insertions” (CI’s).
e. Joseph Estrada Admin. - In 1999, the CDF was removed in the GAA and replaced
by three (3) separate forms of CIs, namely, the "Food Security Program Fund," the
"Lingap Para Sa Mahihirap Program Fund," and the "Rural/Urban Development
Infrastructure Program Fund," all of which contained a special provision requiring
"prior consultation" with the Members of Congress for the release of the funds. In
2000, the "Priority Development Assistance Fund" (PDAF) appeared in the GAA.
f. Gloria Arroyo Admin. - formal participation of non-governmental organizations
(NGO) was allowed in the implementation of government projects. PDAF Articles
the individual legislators.
e. Present Admin. (2010-present):
1. P70 million: for each member of the lower house; broken down to – P40
million for “hard projects” (infrastructure projects like roads, buildings, schools,
etc.), and P30 million for “soft projects” (scholarship grants, medical assistance,
livelihood programs, IT development, etc.);
2. P200 million: for each senator; broken down to – P100 million for hard
projects, P100 million for soft projects;
3. P200 million: for the Vice-President; broken down to – P100 million for
hard projects, P100 million for soft projects.
The PDAF articles in the GAA do provide for realignment of funds whereby certain
cabinet members may request for the realignment of funds into their department
provided that the request for realignment is approved or concurred by the
legislator concerned.
III. Presidential Pork Barrel
The Malampaya Funds was created as a special fund under Presidential
Decree No. 910 by then President Marcos recognized the need to set up a special
fund to help intensify, strengthen, and consolidate government efforts relating to
the exploration, exploitation, and development of indigenous energy resources vital
to economic growth.
Also, the Presidential Social Fund was created under PD 1869, or the
Charter of the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR). The
Presidential Social Fund has been described as a special funding facility managed
and administered by the Presidential Management Staff through which the
President provides direct assistance to priority programs and projects not funded
under the regular budget. It is sourced from the share of the government in the
aggregate gross earnings of PAGCOR.
IV. Controversies
NBI began its probe into allegations that "the government has been
defrauded of some ₱10 Billion over the past 10 years by a syndicate using funds
from the pork barrel of lawmakers and various government agencies for scores of
ghost projects." The investigation was spawned by sworn affidavits of six (6)
whistle-blowers, headed by Benhur Luy, who declared that JLN Corporation – "JLN"
standing for Janet Lim Napoles, who had been helping lawmakers in funneling their
pork barrel funds by swindling billions of pesos for "ghost projects" using at least
20 dummy NGOs for an entire decade. The whistle-blowers declared that the
money was diverted into Napoles‘ private accounts. An audit was then conducted
by the Commission on Audit and the results thereof concurred with the exposes of
Luy et al.
Petitioners filed an Urgent Petition for Cetiorari seeking that the annual
"Pork Barrel System," be declared unconstitutional and null and void for being acts
constituting grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the congressional pork barrel system is constitutional.
2. Whether or not presidential pork barrel system is constitutional.
RULING:
1. No, the congressional pork barrel system is unconstitutional because it violates
the following principles:
a. Separation of Powers
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, what’s 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. (Note in the older case of PHILCONSA v. Enriquez, it was ruled that pork
barrel, then called as CDF or the Countrywide Development Fund, was
constitutional insofar as the legislators only recommend where their pork barrel
funds go). The Court also cited Corwin’s Commentary on Constitution of the United
States regarding separation of powers:
“ . . . it is a breach of the National fundamental law if Congress gives up its
legislative power and transfers it to the President, or to the Judicial branch, or if by
law it attempts to invest itself or its members with either executive power of judicial
power.”
b. Non-delegability of Legislative Power
As a rule, the Constitution vests legislative power in Congress alone. (The
Constitution does grant the people legislative power but only insofar as the
processes of referendum and initiative are concerned). That being, legislative power
cannot be delegated by Congress for it cannot delegate further that which was
delegated to it by the Constitution.
Exceptions to the rule are:
(i) delegated legislative power to local government units but this shall
involve purely local matters;
(ii) authority of the President to, by law, exercise powers necessary and
proper to carry out a declared national policy in times of war or other
national emergency, or fix within specified limits, and subject to such
limitations and restrictions as Congress may impose, tariff rates, import
and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or
imposts within the framework of the national development program of the
Government.
In this case, the power to appropriate funds is solely lodged in Congress collectively
and not lodged in the individual members.
c. Principle of Checks and Balances
One feature in the principle of checks and balances is the power of the president to
veto items in the GAA which he may deem to be inappropriate. But this power is
already being undermined because of the fact that once the GAA is approved, the
legislator can now identify the project to which he will appropriate his PDAF.
d. Local Autonomy
As a rule, the local governments have the power to manage their local affairs.
Through their Local Development Councils (LDCs), the LGUs can develop their own
programs and policies concerning their localities. But with the PDAF, particularly on
the part of the members of the house of representatives, what’s happening is that a
congressman can either bypass or duplicate a project by the LDC and later on claim
it as his own.
2. Yes, presidential pork barrel system is constitutional because because it does not
violate Section 29 (1), Article VI of the Constitution which provides:
No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of
an appropriation made by law.
The Court ruled that PD 910 (Malampaya Fund) and PD 1869 (amended the
PAGCOR’s charter) are sufficient laws which met the requirement of Section 29,
Article VI of the Constitution. The appropriation contemplated therein does not
have to be a particular appropriation as it can be a general appropriation as in the
case of PD 910 and PD 1869.