admin full text.docx

7/25/2019 admin full text.docx

1/70

G.R. No. 208566 November 19, 2013

GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA OSE !. "ILLEGAS R. OSE L. GON#ALE# REUBEN !.ABANTE $%& 'UINTIN (AREDES SAN DIEGO,Petitioners,vs.

)ONORABLE E*ECUTI"E SECRETAR+ (A'UITO N. OC)OA R. SECRETAR+ O BUDGET AND!ANAGE!ENT LORENCIO B. ABAD, NATIONAL TREASURER ROSALIA ". DE LEON SENATE O T)E()ILI((INES re-ree%/e& b RANLIN !. DRILON m 4$-$4/ $ SENATE (RESIDENT $%& )OUSEO RE(RESENTATI"ES re-ree%/e& b ELICIANO S. BEL!ONTE, R. % 4$-$4/ $ S(EAER OT)E )OUSE,Respondents.

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

G.R. No. 20893

SOCIAL USTICE SOCIET+ SS7 (RESIDENT SA!SON S. ALCANTARA,Petitioner,vs.)ONORABLE RANLIN !. DRILON % 4$-$4/ $ SENATE (RESIDENT $%& )ONORABLE

ELICIANO S. BEL!ONTE, R., % 4$-$4/ $ S(EAER O T)E )OUSE ORE(RESENTATI"ES,Respondents.

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

G.R. No. 209251

(EDRITO !. NE(O!UCENO, ormer !$orBo$4, !$r%&:e ormer (rov%4$; Bo$r& !ember(rov%4e o< !$r%&:e,Petitioner,vs.(RESIDENT BENIGNO SI!EON C. A'UINO III= $%& SECRETAR+ LORENCIO BUTC) ABAD,DE(ART!ENT O BUDGET AND !ANAGE!ENT,Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

(ERLASBERNABE, J.:

"Experience is the oracle of truth."

-!aes #adison

$efore the Court are consolidated petitions%ta&en under Rule '( of the Rules of Court, all of )hich assail theconstitutionalit* of the Por& $arrel S*ste. Due to the coplexit* of the su+ect atter, the Court shallheretofore discuss the s*stes conceptual underpinnins +efore detailin the particulars of the constitutionalchallene.

/he 0acts

I. Por& $arrel1 2eneral Concept.

"Por& $arrel" is political parlance of 3erican -Enlish oriin.45istoricall*, its usae a* +e traced tothe deradin ritual of rollin out a +arrel stuffed )ith por& to a ultitude of +lac& slaves )ho )ouldcast their faished +odies into the porcine feast to assuae their huner )ith orsels coin fro theenerosit* of their )ell-fed aster.6/his practice )as later copared to the actions of 3ericanleislators in tr*in to direct federal +udets in favor of their districts. (7hile the advent of refrieration
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#fnt5http://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#fnt1


2/70

has ade the actual por& +arrel o+solete, it persists in reference to political +ills that "+rin hoe the+acon" to a leislators district and constituents.'In a ore technical sense, "Por& $arrel" refers to anappropriation of overnent spendin eant for locali8ed proects and secured solel* or priaril* to+rin one* to a representative9s district.:Soe scholars on the su+ect further use it to refer toleislative control of local appropriations.;

In the Philippines, "Por& $arrel" has +een coonl* referred to as lup-su, discretionar* funds of#e+ers of the


3/70

proects", +ut also "soft proects",%or non-pu+lic )or&s proects such as those )hich )ould fallunder the cateories of, aon others, education, health and livelihood.%%

C. Post-#artial =;'-==%?.

3fter the EDS3 People Po)er Revolution in =;' and the restoration of Philippine deocrac*,"Conressional Por& $arrel" )as revived in the for of the "#indanao Developent 0und"and the "isa*as Developent 0und" )hich )ere created )ith lup-su appropriationsof P6;@ #illion and P%6@ #illion, respectivel*, for the fundin of developent proects in the#indanao and isa*as areas in =;=. It has +een docuented%4that the claor raised +* theSenators and the CD0? )hich )as interated into the ==@ 233%6)ith aninitial fundin ofP%.4 $illion to cover "sall local infrastructure and other priorit* counit*proects."

Bnder the 233s for the *ears == and ==%,%(CD0 funds )ere, )ith the approval of thePresident, to +e released directl* to the ipleentin aencies +ut "su+ect to the su+issionof the reuired list of proects and activities."3lthouh the 233s fro ==@ to ==% )ere silent

as to the aounts of allocations of the individual leislators, as )ell as their participation in theidentification of proects, it has +een reported%'that +* ==%, Representatives )erereceivinP%.( #illion each in CD0 funds, )hile Senators )ere receivin P; #illion each,)ithout an* liitation or ualification, and that the* could identif* an* &ind of proect, frohard or infrastructure proects such as roads, +rides, and +uildins to "soft proects" such astext+oo&s, edicines, and scholarships.%:

D. 0idel alde8 Raos >Raos? 3dinistration >==%-==;?.

/he follo)in *ear, or in ==4,%;the 233 explicitl* stated that the release of CD0 funds )as to+e ade upon the su+ission of the list of proects and activities identified +*, aon others,individual leislators. 0or the first tie, the ==4 CD0 3rticle included an allocation for theice-President.%=3s such, Representatives )ere allocated P%.( #illion each in CD0 funds,

Senators, P; #illion each, and the ice-President, P%@ #illion.

In ==6,4@==(,4and ==',4%the 233s contained the sae provisions on proect identificationand fund release as found in the ==4 CD0 3rticle. In addition, ho)ever, the Departent of$udet and #anaeent >D$#? )as directed to su+it reports to the Senate Coittee on0inance and the 5ouse Coittee on 3ppropriations on the releases ade fro the funds. 44

Bnder the ==:46CD0 3rticle, #e+ers of Conress and the ice-President, in consultation)ith the ipleentin aenc* concerned, )ere directed to su+it to the D$# the list of (@of proects to +e funded fro their respective CD0 allocations )hich shall +e dul* endorsed +*>a? the Senate President and the Chairan of the Coittee on 0inance, in the case of theSenate, and >+? the Spea&er of the 5ouse of Representatives and the Chairan of theCoittee on 3ppropriations, in the case of the 5ouse of RepresentativesF )hile the list forthe reainin (@ )as to +e su+itted )ithin six >'? onths thereafter. /he sae article alsostated that the proect list, )hich )ould +e pu+lished +* the D$#,4("shall +e the +asis for therelease of funds" and that "no funds appropriated herein shall +e dis+ursed for proects notincluded in the list herein reuired."

/he follo)in *ear, or in ==;,4'the foreoin provisions reardin the reuired lists andendorseents )ere reproduced, except that the pu+lication of the proect list )as no lonerreuired as the list itself sufficed for the release of CD0 0unds.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt23http://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#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#fnt30http://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#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#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt22http://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#fnt36


4/70

/he CD0 )as not, ho)ever, the lone for of "Conressional Por& $arrel" at that tie. Otherfors of "Conressional Por& $arrel" )ere reportedl* fashioned and inserted into the 233>called "Conressional Insertions" or "CIs"? in order to perpetuate the ad inistrations politicalaenda.4:It has +een articulated that since CIs "fored part and parcel of the +udets ofexecutive departents, the* )ere not easil* identifia+le and )ere thus harder to onitor."Nonetheless, the la)a&ers theselves as )ell as the finance and +udet officials of theipleentin aencies, as )ell as the D$#, purportedl* &ne) a+out the

insertions.4;Exaples of these CIs are the Departent of Education >DepEd? School $uildin0und, the Conressional Initiative 3llocations, the Pu+lic 7or&s 0und, the El NiGo 0und, andthe Povert* 3lleviation 0und.4=/he allocations for the School $uildin 0und, particularl*,Hshall +e ade upon prior consultation )ith the representative of the leislative districtconcerned.6@Siilarl*, the leislators had the po)er to direct ho), )here and )hen theseappropriations )ere to +e spent.6

E. !oseph Eercito Estrada >Estrada? 3dinistration >==;-%@@?.

In ===,6%the CD0 )as reoved in the 233 and replaced +* three >4? separate fors of CIs,nael*, the "0ood Securit* Prora 0und," 64the "


5/70

Sinificantl*, it )as durin this era that provisions )hich allo)ed foral participation of non-overnental orani8ations >N2O? in the ipleentation of overnent proects )ereintroduced. In the Suppleental $udet for %@@', )ith respect to the appropriation for school+uildins, N2Os )ere, +* la), encouraed to participate. 0or such purpose, the la) statedthat "the aount of at least P%(@ #illion of the P(@@ #illion allotted for the construction andcopletion of school +uildins shall +e ade availa+le to N2Os includin the 0ederation of0ilipino-Chinese Cha+ers of Coerce and Industr*, Inc. for its "Operation $arrio School"

prora, )ith capa+ilit* and proven trac& records in the construction of pu+lic school +uildinsx x x."'%/he sae allocation )as ade availa+le to N2Os in the %@@: and %@@= 233s underthe DepEd $udet.'43lso, it )as in %@@: that the 2overnent Procureent Polic*$oard'6>2PP$? issued Resolution No. %-%@@: dated !une %=, %@@: >2PP$ Resolution %-%@@:?, aendin the ipleentin rules and reulations '(of R3 =;6,''the 2overnentProcureent Refor 3ct, to include, as a for of neotiated procureent, ':the procedure)here+* the Procurin Entit*';>the ipleentin aenc*? a* enter into a eorandu ofareeent )ith an N2O, provided that "an appropriation la) or ordinance earar&s anaount to +e specificall* contracted out to N2Os."'=

2. Present 3dinistration >%@@-Present?.

Differin fro previous PD30 3rticles +ut siilar to the CD0 3rticles, the %@:@PD30 3rticle

included an express stateent on lup-su aounts allocated for individual leislators andthe ice-President1 Representatives )ere iven P:@ #illion each, +ro&en do)n into P6@#illion for "hard proects" and P4@ #illion for "soft proects"F )hile P%@@ #illion )as iven toeach Senator as )ell as the ice-President, )ith a P@@ #illion allocation each for "hard" and"soft proects." +? allotent released has not *et +een o+liated for the oriinal scope of )or&, and >c? thereuest for realinent is )ith the concurrence of the leislator concerned. :

In the %@%:%and %@4:4PD30 3rticles, it is stated that the "identification of proects andJor

desination of +eneficiaries shall confor to the priorit* list, standard or desin prepared +*each ipleentin aenc* >priorit* list reuireent? x x x." 5o)ever, as practiced, it )ouldstill +e the individual leislator )ho )ould choose and identif* the proect fro the said priorit*list.:6

Provisions on leislator allocations:(as )ell as fund realinent:')ere included in the %@%and %@4 PD30 3rticlesF +ut the allocation for the ice-President, )hich )as peed at P%@@#illion in the %@ 233, had +een deleted. In addition, the %@4 PD30 3rticle no) allo)ed


6/70

On the one hand, the #alapa*a 0unds )as created as a special fund under Section ;;@ofPresidential Decree No. >PD? =@, ;issued +* then President 0erdinand E. #arcos >#arcos? on #arch%%, =:'. In enactin the said la), #arcos reconi8ed the need to set up a special fund to helpintensif*, strenthen, and consolidate overnent efforts relatin to the exploration, exploitation, anddevelopent of indienous ener* resources vital to econoic ro)th.;%Due to the ener*-relatedactivities of the overnent in the #alapa*a natural as field in Pala)an, or the "#alapa*a Deep7ater 2as-to-Po)er Proect",;4the special fund created under PD =@ has +een currentl* la+eled as

#alapa*a 0unds.

On the other hand the Presidential Social 0und )as created under Section %, /itle I;6of PD ;'=,;(orthe Charter of the Philippine 3useent and 2ain Corporation >P32COR?. PD ;'= )as siilarl*issued +* #arcos on !ul* , =;4. #ore than t)o >%? *ears after, he aended PD ;'= andaccordinl* issued PD ==4 on Octo+er 4, =;(,;'aendin Section %;:of the forer la). 3s itstands, the Presidential Social 0und has +een descri+ed as a special fundin facilit* anaed andadinistered +* the Presidential #anaeent Staff throuh )hich the President provides directassistance to priorit* proras and proects not funded under the reular +udet. It is sourced frothe share of the overnent in the areate ross earnins of P32COR.;;

I. Controversies in the Philippines.

Over the decades, "por&" funds in the Philippines have increased treendousl*,;=o)in in no sallpart to previous Presidents )ho reportedl* used the "Por& $arrel" in order to ain conressionalsupport.=@It )as in ==' )hen the first controvers* surroundin the "Por& $arrel" erupted. 0orer#ari&ina Cit* Representative Roeo Canda8o >Canda8o?, then an anon*ous source, "+le) the lid onthe hue sus of overnent one* that reularl* )ent into the poc&ets of leislators in the for of&ic&+ac&s."=5e said that "the &ic&+ac&s )ere SOP >standard operatin procedure? aon leislatorsand raned fro a lo) = percent to a hih (% percent of the cost of each proect, )hich could +ean*thin fro dredin, rip rappin, sphaltin, concretin, and construction of school+uildins."=%"Other sources of &ic&+ac&s that Canda8o identified )ere pu+lic funds intended foredicines and text+oo&s. 3 fe) da*s later, the tale of the one* trail +ecae the +anner stor* of thePhilippine Dail* Inuirer issue of 3uust 4, ==', accopanied +* an illustration of a roastedpi."=4"/he pu+lication of the stories, includin those a+out conressional initiative allocations ofcertain la)a&ers, includin P4.' $illion for a Conressan, spar&ed pu+lic outrae."=6

/hereafter, or in %@@6, several concerned citi8ens souht the nullification of the PD30 as enacted inthe %@@6 233 for +ein unconstitutional. Bnfortunatel*, for lac& of "an* pertinent evidentiar* supportthat illeal isuse of PD30 in the for of &ic&+ac&s has +ecoe a coon exercise of unscrupulous#e+ers of Conress," the petition )as disissed.=(

Recentl*, or in !ul* of the present *ear, the National $ureau of Investiation >N$I? +ean its pro+e intoalleations that "the overnent has +een defrauded of soe P@ $illion over the past @ *ears +* as*ndicate usin funds fro the por& +arrel of la)a&ers and various overnent aencies for scoresof host proects."='/he investiation )as spa)ned +* s)orn affidavits of six >'? )histle-+lo)ers )hodeclared that !(? la)a&ers for Plunder, and three >4? other la)a&ers for #alversation,Direct $ri+er*, and iolation of the 3nti-2raft and Corrupt Practices 3ct. 3lso recoended to +echared in the coplaints are soe of the la)a&ers chiefs -of-staff or representatives, the headsand other officials of three >4? ipleentin aencies, and the several presidents of the N2Os set up+* Napoles.=;

On 3uust ', %@4, the Coission on 3udit >Co3? released the results of a three-*ear auditinvestiation==coverin the use of leislators9 PD30 fro %@@: to %@@=, or durin the last three >4?*ears of the 3rro*o adinistration. /he purpose of the audit )as to deterine the propriet* of releases
http://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#fnt81http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt82http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt83http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt83http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt83http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt84http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt85http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt86http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt87http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt87http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt88http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt89http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt89http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt89http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt90http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt90http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt90http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt91http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt92http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt92http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt93http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt94http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt95http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt96http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt97http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt98http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt99http://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#fnt82http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt83http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt84http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt85http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt86http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt87http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt88http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt89http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt90http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt91http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt92http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt93http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt94http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt95http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt96http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt97http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt98http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt99


7/70

of funds under PD30 and the arious Infrastructures includin I2OCCs?. @/he total releasescovered +* the audit aounted to P;.4:6 $illion in PD30 and P4%.''6 $illion in ICo3 Chairperson?, the Co3 is, as of this )ritin, in the process of preparin "oneconsolidated report" on the #alapa*a 0unds. @(

. /he Procedural 3ntecedents.

Spurred in lare part +* the findins contained in the Co3 Report and the Napoles controvers*, severalpetitions )ere loded +efore the Court siilarl* see&in that the "Por& $arrel S*ste" +e declaredunconstitutional. /o recount, the relevant procedural antecedents in these cases are as follo)s1
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt100http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt100http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt101http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt102http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt103http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt104http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt105http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt100http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt101http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt102http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt103http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt104http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt105


8/70

On 3uust %;, %@4, petitioner Sason S. 3lcantara >3lcantara?, President of the Social !ustice Societ*, filed aPetition for Prohi+ition of even date under Rule '( of the Rules of Court >3lcantara Petition?, see&in that the"Por& $arrel S*ste" +e declared unconstitutional, and a )rit of prohi+ition +e issued peranentl* restraininrespondents 0ran&lin #. Drilon and 0eliciano S. $elonte, !r., in their respective capacities as the incu+entSenate President and Spea&er of the 5ouse of Representatives, fro further ta&in an* steps to enactleislation appropriatin funds for the "Por& $arrel S*ste," in )hatever for and +* )hatever nae it a* +ecalled, and fro approvin further releases pursuant thereto. @'/he 3lcantara Petition )as doc&eted as 2.R.

No. %@;6=4.

On Septe+er 4, %@4, petitioners 2reco 3ntonious $eda $. $elica, !ose $elica, et al.?, and !ose #. illeas, !r. >illeas? filed an Brent Petition 0orCertiorari and Prohi+ition 7ith Pra*er 0or /he Iediate Issuance of /eporar* Restrainin Order >/RO?andJor 7rit of Preliinar* Inunction dated 3uust %:, %@4 under Rule '( of the Rules of Court >$elicaPetition?, see&in that the annual "Por& $arrel S*ste," presentl* e+odied in the provisions of the 233 of%@4 )hich provided for the %@4 PD30, and the Executives lup-su, discretionar* funds, such as the#alapa*a 0unds and the Presidential Social 0und,@:+e declared unconstitutional and null and void for +einacts constitutin rave a+use of discretion. 3lso, the* pra* that the Court issue a /RO aainst respondentsPauito N. Ochoa, !r., 0lorencio $. 3+ad >Secretar* 3+ad? and Rosalia . De D$#?, and National /reasurer, or their aents, for the to iediatel* cease an* expenditure under theaforesaid funds. 0urther, the* pra* that the Court order the foreoin respondents to release to the Co3 and tothe pu+lic1 >a? "the coplete scheduleJlist of leislators )ho have availed of their PD30 and I

d? settin theconsolidated cases for Oral 3ruents on Octo+er ;, %@4.

On Septe+er %4, %@4, the Office of the Solicitor 2eneral >OS2? filed a Consolidated Coent >Coent? ofeven date +efore the Court, see&in the liftin, or in the alternative, the partial liftin )ith respect to educationaland edical assistance purposes, of the Courts Septe+er @, %@4 /RO, and that the consolidated petitions+e disissed for lac& of erit.4

On Septe+er %6, %@4, the Court issued a Resolution of even date directin petitioners to repl* to theCoent.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt106http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt107http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt108http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt108http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt109http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt109http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt110http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt110http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt111http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt112http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt113http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt106http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt107http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt108http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt109http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt110http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt111http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt112http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt113


9/70

Petitioners, )ith the exception of Nepouceno, filed their respective replies to the Coent1 >a? on Septe+er4@, %@4, illeas filed a separate Repl* dated Septe+er %:, %@4 >illeas Repl*?F >+? on Octo+er , %@4,$elica, et al. filed a Repl* dated Septe+er 4@, %@4 >$elica Repl*?F and >c? on Octo+er %, %@4, 3lcantarafiled a Repl* dated Octo+er , %@4.

On Octo+er , %@4, the Court issued an 3dvisor* providin for the uidelines to +e o+served +* the parties forthe Oral 3ruents scheduled on Octo+er ;, %@4. In vie) of the technicalit* of the issues aterial to thepresent cases, incu+ent Solicitor 2eneral 0rancis 5. !ardele8a >Solicitor 2eneral? )as directed to +rin )ithhi durin the Oral 3ruents representativeJs fro the D$# and Conress )ho )ould +e a+le to copetentl*and copletel* ans)er uestions related to, aon others, the +udetin process and its ipleentation.0urther, the Co3 Chairperson )as appointed as aicus curiae and there+* reuested to appear +efore theCourt durin the Oral 3ruents.

On Octo+er ; and @, %@4, the Oral 3ruents )ere conducted. /hereafter, the Court directed the parties tosu+it their respective eoranda )ithin a period of seven >:? da*s, or until Octo+er :, %@4, )hich theparties su+seuentl* did.

/he Issues $efore the Court

$ased on the pleadins, and as refined durin the Oral 3ruents, the follo)in are the ain issues for the

Courts resolution1

I. Procedural Issues.

7hether or not >a? the issues raised in the consolidated petitions involve an actual and usticia+le controvers*F>+? the issues raised in the consolidated petitions are atters of polic* not su+ect to udicial revie)F >c?petitioners have leal standin to sueF and >d? the Courts Decision dated 3uust =, ==6 in 2.R. Nos.4@(, 4:6, 4:'', and 4;;;, entitled "Philippine Constitution 3ssociation v. Enriue8" 6>Philconsa?and Decision dated 3pril %6, %@% in 2.R. No. '6=;:, entitled "


10/70

I. Procedural Issues.

/he prevailin rule in constitutional litiation is that no uestion involvin the constitutionalit* or validit* of a la)or overnental act a* +e heard and decided +* the Court unless there is copliance )ith the lealreuisites for udicial inuir*,:nael*1 >a? there ust +e an actual case or controvers* callin for the exerciseof udicial po)erF >+? the person challenin the act ust have the standin to uestion the validit* of thesu+ect act or issuanceF >c? the uestion of constitutionalit* ust +e raised at the earliest opportunit* F and >d?the issue of constitutionalit* ust +e the ver* lis ota of the case. ;Of these reuisites, case la) states thatthe first t)o are the ost iportant=and, therefore, shall +e discussed forth)ith.

3. Existence of an 3ctual Case or Controvers*.

$* constitutional fiat, udicial po)er operates onl* )hen there is an actual case or controvers*.%@/his ise+odied in Section , 3rticle III of the =;: Constitution )hich pertinentl* states that "udicial po)er includesthe dut* of the courts of ustice to settle actual controversies involvin rihts )hich are leall* deanda+le andenforcea+le x x x." !urisprudence provides that an actual case or controvers* is one )hich "involves a conflictof leal rihts, an assertion of opposite leal clais, suscepti+le of udicial resolution as distinuished fro ah*pothetical or a+stract difference or dispute.%In other )ords, "there ust +e a contrariet* of leal rihts thatcan +e interpreted and enforced on the +asis of existin la) and urisprudence."%%Related to the reuireent ofan actual case or controvers* is the reuireent of "ripeness," eanin that the uestions raised for

constitutional scrutin* are alread* ripe for adudication. "3 uestion is ripe for adudication )hen the act +einchallened has had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenin it. It is a prereuisite that soethinhad then +een accoplished or perfored +* either +ranch +efore a court a* coe into the picture, and thepetitioner ust allee the existence of an iediate or threatened inur* to itself as a result of the challenedaction."%4"7ithal, courts )ill decline to pass upon constitutional issues throuh advisor* opinions, +ereft as the*are of authorit* to resolve h*pothetical or oot uestions." %6

$ased on these principles, the Court finds that there exists an actual and usticia+le controvers* in these cases.

/he reuireent of contrariet* of leal rihts is clearl* satisfied +* the antaonistic positions of the parties onthe constitutionalit* of the "Por& $arrel S*ste." 3lso, the uestions in these consolidated cases are ripe foradudication since the challened funds and the provisions allo)in for their utili8ation A such as the %@4 233for the PD30, PD =@ for the #alapa*a 0unds and PD ;'=, as aended +* PD ==4, for the Presidential

Social 0und A are currentl* existin and operationalF hence, there exists an iediate or threatened inur* topetitioners as a result of the unconstitutional use of these pu+lic funds.

3s for the PD30, the Court ust dispel the notion that the issues related thereto had +een rendered oot andacadeic +* the refors underta&en +* respondents. 3 case +ecoes oot )hen there is no ore actualcontrovers* +et)een the parties or no useful purpose can +e served in passin upon the erits. %(Differin frothis description, the Court o+serves that respondents proposed line-ite +udetin schee )ould notterinate the controvers* nor diinish the useful purpose for its resolution since said refor is eared to)ardsthe %@6 +udet, and not the %@4 PD30 3rticle )hich, +ein a distinct su+ect atter, reains leall* effectiveand existin. Neither )ill the Presidents declaration that he had alread* "a+olished the PD30" render theissues on PD30 oot precisel* +ecause the Executive +ranch of overnent has no constitutional authorit* tonullif* or annul its leal existence. $* constitutional desin, the annulent or nullification of a la) a* +e doneeither +* Conress, throuh the passae of a repealin la), or +* the Court, throuh a declaration ofunconstitutionalit*. Instructive on this point is the follo)in exchane +et)een 3ssociate !ustice 3ntonio /.

Carpio >!ustice Carpio? and the Solicitor 2eneral durin the Oral 3ruents1%'

!ustice Carpio1 /he President has ta&en an oath to faithfull* execute the la),%:correct Solicitor 2eneral!ardele8a1 es, our 5onor.

!ustice Carpio1 3nd so the President cannot refuse to ipleent the 2eneral 3ppropriations 3ct, correct

Solicitor 2eneral !ardele8a1 7ell, that is our ans)er, our 5onor. In the case, for exaple of the PD30, thePresident has a dut* to execute the la)s +ut in the face of the outrae over PD30, the President )as sa*in, "I
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt117http://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#fnt125http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt125http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt126http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt127http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt127http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt127http://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#fnt124http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt125http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt126http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt127


11/70

a not sure that I )ill continue the release of the soft proects," and that started, our 5onor. No), )hether ornot that Q >interrupted?

!ustice Carpio1 eah. I )ill rant the President if there are anoalies in the proect, he has the po)er to stopthe releases in the eantie, to investiate, and that is Section 4; of Chapter ( of $oo& ' of the Revised3dinistrative Code%;x x x. So at ost the President can suspend, no) if the President +elieves that the PD30is unconstitutional, can he ust refuse to ipleent it

Solicitor 2eneral !ardele8a1 No, our 5onor, as )e )ere tr*in to sa* in the specific case of the PD30 +ecauseof the Co3 Report, +ecause of the reported irreularities and this Court can ta&e udicial notice, even outside,outside of the CO3 Report, *ou have the report of the )histle-+lo)ers, the President )as ust exercisinprecisel* the dut* Q.

x x x x

!ustice Carpio1 es, and that is correct. ouve seen the Co3 Report, there are anoalies, *ou stop andinvestiate, and prosecute, he has done that. $ut, does that ean that PD30 has +een repealed

Solicitor 2eneral !ardele8a1 No, our 5onor x x x.

x x x x

!ustice Carpio1 So that PD30 can +e leall* a+olished onl* in t)o >%? cases. Conress passes a la) to repealit, or this Court declares it unconstitutional, correct

Solictor 2eneral !ardele8a1 es, our 5onor.

!ustice Carpio1 /he President has no po)er to leall* a+olish PD30. >Ephases supplied?

Even on the assuption of ootness, urisprudence, nevertheless, dictates that "the oot and acadeicprinciple is not a aical forula that can autoaticall* dissuade the Court in resolvin a case." /he Court )illdecide cases, other)ise oot, if1 first, there is a rave violation of the ConstitutionF second, the exceptional

character of the situation and the paraount pu+lic interest is involvedF third, )hen the constitutional issueraised reuires forulation of controllin principles to uide the +ench, the +ar, and the pu+licF and fourth, thecase is capa+le of repetition *et evadin revie).%=

/he applica+ilit* of the first exception is clear fro the fundaental posture of petitioners A the* essentiall*allee rave violations of the Constitution )ith respect to, inter alia, the principles of separation of po)ers, non-delea+ilit* of leislative po)er, chec&s and +alances, accounta+ilit* and local autono*.

/he applica+ilit* of the second exception is also apparent fro the nature of the interests involved

A the constitutionalit* of the ver* s*ste )ithin )hich sinificant aounts of pu+lic funds have +een andcontinue to +e utili8ed and expended undou+tedl* presents a situation of exceptional character as )ell as aatter of paraount pu+lic interest. /he present petitions, in fact, have +een loded at a tie )hen the

s*stes fla)s have never +efore +een anified. /o the Courts ind, the coalescence of the Co3 Report, theaccounts of nuerous )histle-+lo)ers, and the overnents o)n reconition that refors are needed "toaddress the reported a+uses of the PD30"4@deonstrates a pria facie pattern of a+use )hich onl*underscores the iportance of the atter. It is also +* this findin that the Court finds petitioners clais as noterel* theori8ed, speculative or h*pothetical. Of note is the )eiht accorded +* the Court to the findins ade+* the Co3 )hich is the constitutionall*-andated audit ar of the overnent. In Delos Santos v. Co3, 4arecent case )herein the Court upheld the Co3s disallo)ance of irreularl* dis+ursed PD30 funds, it )asephasi8ed that1
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt128http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt129http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt130http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt130http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt131http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt128http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt129http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt130http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt131


12/70

/he CO3 is endo)ed )ith enouh latitude to deterine, prevent, and disallo) irreular, unnecessar*,excessive, extravaant or unconsciona+le expenditures of overnent funds. It is tas&ed to +e viilant andconscientious in safeuardin the proper use of the overnent9s, and ultiatel* the people9s, propert*. /heexercise of its eneral audit po)er is aon the constitutional echaniss that ives life to the chec& and+alance s*ste inherent in our for of overnent.

It is the eneral polic* of the Court to sustain the decisions of adinistrative authorities, especiall* one )hich isconstitutionall*-created, such as the Co3, not onl* on the +asis of the doctrine of separation of po)ers +ut alsofor their presued expertise in the la)s the* are entrusted to enforce. 0indins of adinistrative aencies areaccorded not onl* respect +ut also finalit* )hen the decision and order are not tainted )ith unfairness orar+itrariness that )ould aount to rave a+use of discretion. It is onl* )hen the Co3 has acted )ithout or inexcess of urisdiction, or )ith rave a+use of discretion aountin to lac& or excess of urisdiction, that thisCourt entertains a petition uestionin its rulins. x x x. >Ephases supplied?

/hus, if onl* for the purpose of validatin the existence of an actual and usticia+le controvers* in these cases,the Court dees the findins under the Co3 Report to +e sufficient.

/he Court also finds the third exception to +e applica+le larel* due to the practical need for a definitive rulinon the s*stes constitutionalit*. 3s disclosed durin the Oral 3ruents, the Co3 Chairperson estiates thatthousands of notices of disallo)ances )ill +e issued +* her office in connection )ith the findins ade in the

Co3 Report. In this relation, 3ssociate !ustice #arvic #ario ictor 0. !ustice


13/70

S*ste" is not an issue dependent upon the )isdo of the political +ranches of overnent +ut rather a lealone )hich the Constitution itself has coanded the Court to act upon. Scrutini8in the contours of the s*stealon constitutional lines is a tas& that the political +ranches of overnent are incapa+le of renderin precisel*+ecause it is an exercise of udicial po)er. #ore iportantl*, the present Constitution has not onl* vested the!udiciar* the riht to exercise udicial po)er +ut essentiall* a&es it a dut* to proceed there)ith. Section ,3rticle III of the =;: Constitution cannot +e an* clearer1 "/he udicial po)er shall +e vested in one SupreeCourt and in such lo)er courts as a* +e esta+lished +* la). It includes the dut* of the courts of ustice to

settle actual controversies involvin rihts )hich are leall* deanda+le and enforcea+le, and to deterine)hether or not there has +een a rave a+use of discretion aountin to lac& or excess of urisdiction on thepart of an* +ranch or instruentalit* of the 2overnent." In Estrada v. Desierto,6%the expanded concept ofudicial po)er under the =;: Constitution and its effect on the political uestion doctrine )as explained asfollo)s164

/o a reat deree, the =;: Constitution has narro)ed the reach of the political uestion doctrine )hen itexpanded the po)er of udicial revie) of this court not onl* to settle actual controversies involvin rihts )hichare leall* deanda+le and enforcea+le +ut also to deterine )hether or not there has +een a rave a+use ofdiscretion aountin to lac& or excess of urisdiction on the part of an* +ranch or instruentalit* ofovernent. 5eretofore, the udiciar* has focused on the "thou shalt not9s" of the Constitution directed aainstthe exercise of its urisdiction. 7ith the ne) provision, ho)ever, courts are iven a reater preroative todeterine )hat it can do to prevent rave a+use of discretion aountin to lac& or excess of urisdiction on thepart of an* +ranch or instruentalit* of overnent. Clearl*, the ne) provision did not ust rant the Courtpo)er of doin nothin. x x x >Ephases supplied?

It ust also +e +orne in ind that H )hen the udiciar* ediates to allocate constitutional +oundaries, it doesnot assert an* superiorit* over the other departentsF does not in realit* nullif* or invalidate an act of theleislature or the executive, +ut onl* asserts the solen and sacred o+liation assined to it +* theConstitution."66/o a reat extent, the Court is lauda+l* coni8ant of the refors underta&en +* its co-eual+ranches of overnent. $ut it is +* constitutional force that the Court ust faithfull* perfor its dut*.Bltiatel*, it is the Courts avo)ed intention that a resolution of these cases )ould not arrest or in an* anneripede the endeavors of the t)o other +ranches +ut, in fact, help ensure that the pillars of chane are erectedon fir constitutional rounds. 3fter all, it is in the +est interest of the people that each reat +ranch ofovernent, )ithin its o)n sphere, contri+utes its share to)ards achievin a holistic and enuine solution tothe pro+les of societ*. 0or all these reasons, the Court cannot heed respondents plea for udicial restraint.

C.


14/70

fundaental la) +* the enforceent of an invalid statute.(@3ll told, petitioners have sufficient locus standi to filethe instant cases.

D. Res !udicata and Stare Decisis.

Res udicata >)hich eans a "atter aduded"? and stare decisis non uieta et overe >or sipl*, stare

decisis )hich eans "follo) past precedents and do not distur+ )hat has +een settled"? are eneral proceduralla) principles )hich +oth deal )ith the effects of previous +ut factuall* siilar dispositions to su+seuentcases. 0or the cases at +ar, the Court exaines the applica+ilit* of these principles in relation to its prior rulinsin Philconsa and +? the intra-relation of post-enactenteasures contained )ithin a particular CD0 or PD30 3rticle, includin not onl* those related to the area ofproect identification +ut also to the areas of fund release and realinent. /he coplexit* of the issues andthe +roader leal anal*ses herein )arranted a* +e, therefore, considered as a po)erful countervailin reasonaainst a )holesale application of the stare decisis principle.

In addition, the Court o+serves that the Philconsa rulin )as actuall* riddled )ith inherent constitutionalinconsistencies )hich siilarl* countervail aainst a full resort to stare decisis. 3s a* +e deduced fro theain conclusions of the case, Philconsas fundaental preise in allo)in #e+ers of Conress to propose
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt150http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt151http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt151http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt152http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt153http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt154http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt150http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt151http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt152http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt153http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt154


15/70

and identif* of proects )ould +e that the said identification authorit* is +ut an aspect of the po)er ofappropriation )hich has +een constitutionall* loded in Conress. 0ro this preise, the contradictions a*+e easil* seen. If the authorit* to identif* proects is an aspect of appropriation and the po)er of appropriationis a for of leislative po)er there+* loded in Conress, then it follo)s that1 >a? it is Conress )hich shouldexercise such authorit*, and not its individual #e+ersF >+? such authorit* ust +e exercised )ithin theprescri+ed procedure of la) passae and, hence, should not +e exercised after the 233 has alread* +eenpassedF and >c? such authorit*, as e+odied in the 233, has the force of la) and, hence, cannot +e erel*

recoendator*. !ustice itus Concurrin Opinion in the sae case sus up the Philconsa uandar* in this)ise1 "Neither )ould it +e o+ectiona+le for Conress, +* la), to appropriate funds for such specific proects asit a* +e indedF to ive that authorit*, ho)ever, to the individual e+ers of Conress in )hatever uise, Ia afraid, )ould +e constitutionall* iperissi+le." 3s the Court no) larel* +enefits fro hindsiht andcurrent findins on the atter, aon others, the Co3 Report, the Court ust partiall* a+andon its previousrulin in Philconsa insofar as it validated the post-enactent identification authorit* of #e+ers of Conress onthe uise that the sae )as erel* recoendator*. /his postulate raises serious constitutionalinconsistencies )hich cannot +e sipl* excused on the round that such echanis is "iainative as it isinnovative." #oreover, it ust +e pointed out that the recent case of 3+a&ada 2uro Part* 3+a&ada? has effectivel* overturned Philconsas allo)ance of post-enactent leislatorparticipation in vie) of the separation of po)ers principle. /hese constitutional inconsistencies and the3+a&ada rule )ill +e discussed in reater detail in the ensuin section of this Decision.

3s for


16/70

Second, there is the Presidential Por& $arrel )hich is herein defined as a &ind of lup-su, discretionar* fund)hich allo)s the President to deterine the anner of its utili8ation. 0or reasons earlier stated,'the Courtshall deliit the use of such ter to refer onl* to the #alapa*a 0unds and the Presidential Social 0und.

7ith these definitions in ind, the Court shall no) proceed to discuss the su+stantive issues of these cases.

$. Su+stantive Issues on the Conressional Por& $arrel.

. Separation of Po)ers.

a. Stateent of Principle.

/he principle of separation of po)ers refers to the constitutional dearcation of the three fundaental po)ersof overnent. In the cele+rated )ords of !ustice


17/70

+lur the constitutional +oundaries +et)een the, Conress ust "not concern it self )ith details foripleentation +* the Executive.":'

/he foreoin cardinal postulates )ere definitivel* enunciated in 3+a&ada )here the Court held that "fro theoent the la) +ecoes effective, an* provision of la) that epo)ers Conress or an* of its e+ers to pla*an* role in the ipleentation or enforceent of the la) violates the principle of separation of po)ers and isthus unconstitutional."::It ust +e clarified, ho)ever, that since the restriction onl* pertains to "an* role in theipleentation or enforceent of the la)," Conress a* still exercise its oversiht function )hich is aechanis of chec&s and +alances that the Constitution itself allo)s. $ut it ust +e ade clear that Conressrole ust +e confined to ere oversiht. 3n* post-enactent-easure allo)in leislator participation +e*ondoversiht is +ereft of an* constitutional +asis and hence, tantaount to iperissi+le interference andJorassuption of executive functions. 3s the Court ruled in 3+a&ada1:;

3n* post-enactent conressional easure x x x should +e liited to scrutin* and investiation. 1wphi1In particular,conressional oversiht ust +e confined to the follo)in1

>? scrutin* +ased priaril* on Conress po)er of appropriation and the +udet hearins conducted inconnection )ith it, its po)er to as& heads of departents to appear +efore and +e heard +* either of its5ouses on an* atter pertainin to their departents and its po)er of confirationF and

>%? investiation and onitorin of the ipleentation of la)s pursuant to the po)er of Conress toconduct inuiries in aid of leislation.

3n* action or step +e*ond that )ill underine the separation of po)ers uaranteed +* the Constitution.>Ephases supplied?

+. 3pplication.

In these cases, petitioners su+it that the Conressional Por& $arrel A aon others, the %@4 PD30 3rticle A")rec&s the assinent of responsi+ilities +et)een the political +ranches" as it is desined to allo) individualleislators to interfere ")a* past the tie it should have ceased" or, particularl*, "after the 233 ispassed.":=/he* state that the findins and recoendations in the Co3 Report provide "an illustration of ho)a+solute and definitive the po)er of leislators )ield over proect ipleentation in coplete violation of the

constitutional principle of separation of po)ers." ;@0urther, the* point out that the Court in the Philconsa caseonl* allo)ed the CD0 to exist on the condition that individual leislators liited their role to recoendinproects and not if the* actuall* dictate their ipleentation.;

0or their part, respondents counter that the separations of po)ers principle has not +een violated since thePresident aintains "ultiate authorit* to control the execution of the 233 and that he "retains the finaldiscretion to reect" the leislators proposals.;%/he* aintain that the Court, in Philconsa, "upheld theconstitutionalit* of the po)er of e+ers of Conress to propose and identif* proects so lon as suchproposal and identification are recoendator*.";43s such, the* clai that "ever*thin in the SpecialProvisions of the %@4 PD30 3rticle follo)s the Philconsa frae)or&, and hence, reains constitutional.";6

/he Court rules in favor of petitioners.

3s a* +e o+served fro its leal histor*, the definin feature of all fors of Conressional Por& $arrel )ould+e the authorit* of leislators to participate in the post-enactent phases of proect ipleentation.

3t its core, leislators A a* it +e throuh proect lists,;(prior consultations;'or prora enus;:A have +eenconsistentl* accorded post-enactent authorit* to identif* the proects the* desire to +e funded throuh variousConressional Por& $arrel allocations. Bnder the %@4 PD30 3rticle, the statutor* authorit* of leislators toidentif* proects post-233 a* +e construed fro the iport of Special Provisions to 4 as )ell as the secondpararaph of Special Provision 6. /o elucidate, Special Provision e+odies the prora enu feature )hich,as evinced fro past PD30 3rticles, allo)s individual leislators to identif* PD30 proects for as lon as theidentified proect falls under a eneral prora listed in the said enu. Relatedl*, Special Provision % provides
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt176http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt177http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt177http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt178http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt179http://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#fnt186http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt187http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt187http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt176http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt177http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt178http://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#fnt187


18/70

that the ipleentin aencies shall, )ithin =@ da*s fro the 233 is passed, su+it to Conress a oredetailed priorit* list, standard or desin prepared and su+itted +* ipleentin aencies fro )hich theleislator a* a&e his choice. /he sae provision further authori8es leislators to identif* PD30 proectsoutside his district for as lon as the representative of the district concerned concurs in )ritin. #ean)hile,Special Provision 4 clarifies that PD30 proects refer to "proects to +e identified +* leislators";;andthereunder provides the allocation liit for the total aount of proects identified +* each leislator. 0inall*,pararaph % of Special Provision 6 reuires that an* odification and revision of the proect identification "shall

+e su+itted to the 5ouse Coittee on 3ppropriations and the Senate Coittee on 0inance for favora+leendorseent to the D$# or the ipleentin aenc*, as the case a* +e." 0ro the foreoin specialprovisions, it cannot +e seriousl* dou+ted that leislators have +een accorded post-enactent authorit* toidentif* PD30 proects.

3side fro the area of proect identification, leislators have also +een accorded post-enactent authorit* inthe areas of fund release and realinent. Bnder the %@4 PD30 3rticle, the statutor* authorit* of leislators toparticipate in the area of fund release throuh conressional coittees is contained in Special Provision ()hich explicitl* states that "all reuest for release of funds shall +e supported +* the docuents prescri+edunder Special Provision No. and favora+l* endorsed +* 5ouse Coittee on 3ppropriations and the SenateCoittee on 0inance, as the case a* +e"F )hile their statutor* authorit* to participate in the area of fundrealinent is contained in1 first , pararaph %, Special Provision 6 ;=)hich explicitl* state s, aon others, that"an* realinent of funds shall +e su+itted to the 5ouse Coittee on 3ppropriations and the SenateCoittee on 0inance for favora+le endorseent to the D$# or the ipleentin aenc*, as the case a*+e F and, second , pararaph , also of Special Provision 6 )hich authori8es the "Secretaries of 3riculture,Education, Ener*, Interior and


19/70

!ustice $erna+e1 So eanin *ou should have the identification of the proect +* the individual leislator

Solicitor 2eneral !ardele8a1 es, our 5onor.

x x x x

!ustice $erna+e1 In short, the act of identification is andator*

Solictor 2eneral !ardele8a1 es, our 5onor. In the sense that if it is not done and then there is noidentification.

x x x x

!ustice $erna+e1 No), )ould *ou &no) of specific instances )hen a proect )as ipleented )ithout theidentification +* the individual leislator

Solicitor 2eneral !ardele8a1 I do not &no), our 5onorF I do not thin& so +ut I have no specific exaples. I)ould dou+t ver* uch, our 5onor, +ecause to ipleent, there is a need for a S3RO and the NC3. 3nd theS3RO and the NC3 are triered +* an identification fro the leislator.

x x x x

Solictor 2eneral !ardele8a1 7hat )e ean +* andator*, our 5onor, is )e )ere repl*in to a uestion, "5o)can a leislator a&e sure that he is a+le to et PD30 0unds" It is andator* in the sense that he ustidentif*, in that sense, our 5onor. Other)ise, if he does not identif*, he cannot avail of the PD30 0unds andhis district )ould not +e a+le to have PD30 0unds, onl* in that sense, our 5onor. >Ephases supplied?

/hus, for all the foreoin reasons, the Court here+* declares the %@4 PD30 3rticle as )ell as all otherprovisions of la) )hich siilarl* allo) leislators to )ield an* for of post-enactent authorit* in theipleentation or enforceent of the +udet, unrelated to conressional oversiht, as violative of theseparation of po)ers principle and thus unconstitutional. Corollar* thereto, inforal practices, throuh )hichleislators have effectivel* intruded into the proper phases of +udet execution, ust +e deeed as acts of

rave a+use of discretion aountin to lac& or excess of urisdiction and, hence, accorded the saeunconstitutional treatent. /hat such inforal practices do exist and have, in fact, +een constantl* o+servedthrouhout the *ears has not +een su+stantiall* disputed here. 3s pointed out +* Chief !ustice #aria Chief !ustice Sereno? durin the Oral 3ruents of these cases1=4

Chief !ustice Sereno1

No), fro the responses of the representative of +oth, the D$# and t)o >%? 5ouses of Conress, if )eenforces the initial thouht that I have, after I had seen the extent of this research ade +* * staff, thatneither the Executive nor Conress frontall* faced the uestion of constitutional copati+ilit* of ho) the* )ereenineerin the +udet process. In fact, the )ords *ou have +een usin, as the three la)*ers of the D$#, and+oth 5ouses of Conress has also +een usin is surpriseF surprised that all of these thins are no) surfacin.In fact, I thouht that )hat the %@4 PD30 provisions did )as to codif* in one section all the past practice thathad +een done since ==. In a certain sense, )e should +e than&ful that the* are all no) in the PD30 SpecialProvisions. x x x >Ephasis and underscorin supplied?

Bltiatel*, leislators cannot exercise po)ers )hich the* do not have, )hether throuh foral easures)ritten into the la) or inforal practices institutionali8ed in overnent aencies, else the Executivedepartent +e deprived of )hat the Constitution has vested as its o)n.

%. Non-delea+ilit* of


20/70

3s an adunct to the separation of po)ers principle,=6leislative po)er shall +e exclusivel* exercised +* the+od* to )hich the Constitution has conferred the sae. In particular, Section , 3rticle I of the =;:Constitution states that such po)er shall +e vested in the Conress of the Philippines )hich shall consist of aSenate and a 5ouse of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people +* the provision oninitiative and referendu.=($ased on this provision, it is clear that onl* Conress, actin as a +icaeral +od*,and the people, throuh the process of initiative and referendu, a* constitutionall* )ield leislative po)erand no other. /his preise e+odies the principle of non-delea+ilit* of leislative po)er, and the onl*

reconi8ed exceptions thereto )ould +e1 >a? deleated leislative po)er to local overnents )hich, +*ieorial practice, are allo)ed to leislate on purel* local attersF ='and >+? constitutionall*-raftedexceptions such as the authorit* of the President to, +* la), exercise po)ers necessar* and proper to carr* outa declared national polic* in ties of )ar or other national eerenc*,=:or fix )ithin specified liits, andsu+ect to such liitations and restrictions as Conress a* ipose, tariff rates, iport and export uotas,tonnae and )harfae dues, and other duties or iposts )ithin the frae)or& of the national developentprora of the 2overnent.=;

Nota+l*, the principle of non-delea+ilit* should not +e confused as a restriction to deleate rule-a&inauthorit* to ipleentin aencies for the liited purpose of either fillin up the details of the la) for itsenforceent >suppleentar* rule-a&in? or ascertainin facts to +rin the la) into actual operation>continent rule-a&in?.==/he conceptual treatent and liitations of deleated rule-a&in )ere explainedin the case of People v. #aceren%@@as follo)s1

/he rant of the rule-a&in po)er to adinistrative aencies is a relaxation of the principle of separation ofpo)ers and is an exception to the nondeleation of leislative po)ers. 3dinistrative reulations or"su+ordinate leislation" calculated to proote the pu+lic interest are necessar* +ecause of "the ro)incoplexit* of odern life, the ultiplication of the su+ects of overnental reulations, and the increaseddifficult* of adinisterin the la)."

x x x x

Nevertheless, it ust +e ephasi8ed that the rule-a&in po)er ust +e confined to details for reulatin theode or proceedin to carr* into effect the la) as it has +een enacted. /he po)er cannot +e extended toaendin or expandin the statutor* reuireents or to e+race atters not covered +* the statute. Rules thatsu+vert the statute cannot +e sanctioned. >Ephases supplied?

+. 3pplication.

In the cases at +ar, the Court o+serves that the %@4 PD30 3rticle, insofar as it confers post-enactentidentification authorit* to individual leislators, violates the principle of non-delea+ilit* since said leislators areeffectivel* allo)ed to individuall* exercise the po)er of appropriation, )hich A as settled in Philconsa A isloded in Conress.%@/hat the po)er to appropriate ust +e exercised onl* throuh leislation is clear froSection %=>?, 3rticle I of the =;: Constitution )hich states that1 "No one* shall +e paid out of the /reasur*except in pursuance of an appropriation ade +* la)." /o understand )hat constitutes an act of appropriation,the Court, in $en8on v. Secretar* of !ustice and Insular 3uditor%@%>$en8on?, held that the po)er ofappropriation involves >a? the settin apart +* la) of a certain su fro the pu+lic revenue for >+? a specifiedpurpose. Essentiall*, under the %@4 PD30 3rticle, individual leislators are iven a personal lup-su fundfro )hich the* are a+le to dictate >a? ho) uch fro such fund )ould o to >+? a specific proect or+eneficiar* that the* theselves also deterine. 3s these t)o >%? acts coprise the exercise of the po)er of

appropriation as descri+ed in $en8on, and iven that the %@4 PD30 3rticle authori8es individual leislators toperfor the sae, undou+tedl*, said leislators have +een conferred the po)er to leislate )hich theConstitution does not, ho)ever, allo). /hus, &eepin )ith the principle of non-delea+ilit* of leislative po)er,the Court here+* declares the %@4 PD30 3rticle, as )ell as all other fors of Conressional Por& $arrel )hichcontain the siilar leislative identification feature as herein discussed, as unconstitutional.

4. Chec&s and $alances.

a. Stateent of PrincipleF Ite-eto Po)er.
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#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#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#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


21/70

/he fact that the three reat po)ers of overnent are intended to +e &ept separate and distinct does notean that the* are a+solutel* unrestrained and independent of each other. /he Constitution has also providedfor an ela+orate s*ste of chec&s and +alances to secure coordination in the )or&ins of the variousdepartents of the overnent.%@4

3 prie exaple of a constitutional chec& and +alance )ould +e the Presidents po)er to veto an ite )ritteninto an appropriation, revenue or tariff +ill su+itted to hi +* Conress for approval throuh a process &no)nas "+ill presentent." /he Presidents ite-veto po)er is found in Section %:>%?, 3rticle I of the =;:Constitution )hich reads as follo)s1

Sec. %:. x x x.

x x x x

>%? /he President shall have the po)er to veto an* particular ite or ites in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff+ill, +ut the veto shall not affect the ite or ites to )hich he does not o+ect.

/he presentent of appropriation, revenue or tariff +ills to the President, )herein he a* exercise his po)er ofite-veto, fors part of the "sinle, finel* )rouht and exhaustivel* considered, procedures" for la)-passae

as specified under the Constitution.%@6

3s stated in 3+a&ada, the final step in the la)-a&in process is the"su+ission of the +ill to the President for approval. Once approved, it ta&es effect as la) after the reuiredpu+lication."%@(

Ela+oratin on the Presidents ite-veto po)er and its relevance as a chec& on the leislature, the Court, in$en8on, explained that1%@'

/he forer Oranic 3ct and the present Constitution of the Philippines a&e the Chief Executive an interalpart of the la)-a&in po)er. 5is disapproval of a +ill, coonl* &no)n as a veto, is essentiall* a leislativeact. /he uestions presented to the ind of the Chief Executive are precisel* the sae as those the leislatureust deterine in passin a +ill, except that his )ill +e a +roader point of vie).

/he Constitution is a liitation upon the po)er of the leislative departent of the overnent, +ut in thisrespect it is a rant of po)er to the executive departent. /he Ephases supplied?
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt203http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt204http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt204http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt205http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt206http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt206http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt207http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt208http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt208http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt209http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt210http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt210http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt203http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt204http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt205http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt206http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt207http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt208http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt209http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt210


22/70

On this preise, it a* +e concluded that an appropriation +ill, to ensure that the President a* +e a+le toexercise his po)er of ite veto, ust contain "specific appropriations of one*" and not onl* "eneralprovisions" )hich provide for paraeters of appropriation.

0urther, it is sinificant to point out that an ite of appropriation ust +e an ite characteri8ed +* sinularcorrespondence A eanin an allocation of a specified sinular aount for a specified sinular purpose,other)ise &no)n as a "line-ite."%/his treatent not onl* allo)s the ite to +e consistent )ith its definition asa "specific appropriation of one*" +ut also ensures that the President a* discerni+l* veto the sae. $asedon the foreoin forulation, the existin Calait* 0und, Continent 0und and the Intellience 0und, +einappropriations )hich state a specified aount for a specific purpose, )ould then +e considered as "line- ite"appropriations )hich are rihtfull* su+ect to ite veto. aintenance and other operatin expenses?, in )hich case the related purposes shall +e deeed sufficientl*specific for the exercise of the Presidents ite veto po)er. 0inall*, special purpose funds and discretionar*funds )ould euall* suare )ith the constitutional echanis of ite-veto for as lon as the* follo) the rule onsinular correspondence as herein discussed. 3nent special purpose funds, it ust +e added that Section%(>6?, 3rticle I of the =;: Constitution reuires that the "special appropriations +ill shall specif* the purposefor )hich it is intended, and shall +e supported +* funds actuall* availa+le as certified +* the National/reasurer, or t o +e raised +* a correspondin revenue proposal therein." #ean)hile, )ith respect todiscretionar* funds, Section % (>'?, 3rticle I of the =;: Constitution reuires that said funds "shall +edis+ursed onl* for pu+lic purposes to +e supported +* appropriate vouchers and su+ect to such uidelines asa* +e prescri+ed +* la)."

In contrast, )hat +ec&ons constitutional infirit* are appropriations )hich erel* provide for a sinular lup-su aount to +e tapped as a source of fundin for ultiple purposes. Since such appropriation t*penecessitates the further deterination of +oth the actual aount to +e expended and the actual purpose of theappropriation )hich ust still +e chosen fro the ultiple purposes stated in the la), it cannot +e said that theappropriation la) alread* indicates a "specific appropriation of one* and hence, )ithout a proper line-ite)hich the President a* veto. 3s a practical result, the President )ould then +e faced )ith the predicaent ofeither vetoin the entire appropriation if he finds soe of its purposes )asteful or undesira+le, or approvin theentire appropriation so as not to hinder soe of its leitiate purposes. 0inall*, it a* not +e aiss to state that

such arraneent also raises non-delea+ilit* issues considerin that the ipleentin authorit* )ould stillhave to deterine, aain, +oth the actual aount to +e expended and the actual purpose of the appropriation.Since the foreoin deterinations constitute the interal aspects of the po)er to appropriate, theipleentin authorit* )ould, in effect, +e exercisin leislative preroatives in violation of the principle of non-delea+ilit*.

+. 3pplication.

In these cases, petitioners clai that "in the current x x x s*ste )here the PD30 is a lup-su appropriation,the leislators identification of the proects after the passae of the 233 denies the President the chance toveto that ite later on."%%3ccordinl*, the* su+it that the "ite veto po)er of the President andates thatappropriations +ills adopt line-ite +udetin" and that "Conress cannot choose a ode of +udetin )hicheffectivel* renders the constitutionall*-iven po)er of the President useless."%4

On the other hand, respondents aintain that the text of the Constitution envisions a process )hich is intendedto eet the deands of a oderni8in econo* and, as such, lup-su appropriations are essential tofinanciall* address situations )hich are +arel* foreseen )hen a 233 is enacted. /he* arue that the decisionof the Conress to create soe lup-su appropriations is constitutionall* allo)ed and textuall*-rounded. %6

/he Court arees )ith petitioners.

Bnder the %@4 PD30 3rticle, the aount of P%6.:= $illion onl* appears as a collective allocation liit sincethe said aount )ould +e further divided aon individual leislators )ho )ould then receive personal lup-
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt211http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt212http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt213http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt214http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt211http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt212http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt213http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt214


23/70

su allocations and could, after the 233 is passed, effectivel* appropriate PD30 funds +ased on their o)ndiscretion. 3s these interediate appropriations are ade +* leislators onl* after the 233 is passed andhence, outside of the la), it necessaril* eans that the actual ites of PD30 appropriation )ould not have+een )ritten into the 2eneral 3ppropriations $ill and thus effectuated )ithout veto consideration. /his &ind oflup-suJpost-enactent leislative identification +udetin s*ste fosters the creation of a +udet )ithin a+udet" )hich su+verts the prescri+ed procedure of presentent and conseuentl* ipairs the Presidentspo)er of ite veto. 3s petitioners aptl* point out, the a+ove-descri+ed s*ste forces the President to decide

+et)een >a? acceptin the entireP%6.:= $illion PD30 allocation )ithout &no)in the specific proects of theleislators, )hich a* or a* not +e consistent )ith his national aenda and >+? reectin the )hole PD30 tothe detrient of all other leislators )ith leitiate proects.%(

#oreover, even )ithout its post-enactent leislative identification feature, the %@4 PD30 3rticle )ouldreain constitutionall* fla)ed since it )ould then operate as a prohi+ited for of lup-su appropriationa+ove-characteri8ed. In particular, the lup-su aount of P%6.:= $illion )ould +e treated as a ere fundinsource 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 theappropriation la) leaves the actual aounts and purposes of the appropriation for further deterination and,therefore, does not readil* indicate a discerni+le ite )hich a* +e su+ect to the Presidents po)er of iteveto.

In fact, on the accounta+ilit* side, the sae lup-su +udetin schee has, as the Co3 Chairperson rela*s,"liited state auditors fro o+tainin relevant data and inforation that )ould aid in ore strinentl* auditinthe utili8ation of said 0unds."%'3ccordinl*, she recoends the adoption of a "line +* line +udet or aountper proposed prora, activit* or proect, and per ipleentin aenc*."%:

5ence, in vie) of the reasons a+ove-stated, the Court finds the %@4 PD30 3rticle, as )ell as all ConressionalPor& $arrel a? scrutin* +ased priaril* on Conress po)er of appropriation and the +udet hearinsconducted in connection )ith it, its po)er to as& heads of departents to appear +efore and +e heard +* eitherof its 5ouses on an* atter pertainin to their departents and its po)er of confirationF %%4or >+? investiationand onitorin of the ipleentation of la)s pursuant to the po)er of Conress to conduct inuiries in aid ofleislation.%%6
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#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#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


24/70

/he Court arees )ith petitioners that certain features e+edded in soe fors of Conressional Por& $arrel,aon others the %@4 PD30 3rticle, has an effect on conressional oversiht. /he fact that individualleislators are iven post-enactent roles in the ipleentation of the +udet a&es it difficult for the to+ecoe disinterested "o+servers" )hen scrutini8in, investiatin or onitorin the ipleentation of theappropriation la). /o a certain extent, the conduct of oversiht )ould +e tainted as said leislators, )ho arevested )ith post-enactent authorit*, )ould, in effect, +e chec&in on activities in )hich the* theselvesparticipate. 3lso, it ust +e pointed out that this ver* sae concept of post-enactent authori8ation runs afoul

of Section 6, 3rticle I of the =;: Constitution )hich provides that1

Sec. 6. No Senator or #e+er of the 5ouse of Representatives a* personall* appear as counsel +efore an*court of ustice or +efore the Electoral /ri+unals, or uasi-udicial and other adinistrative +odies. Neither shallhe, directl* or indirectl*, +e interested financiall* in an* contract )ith, or in an* franchise or special privileeranted +* the 2overnent, or an* su+division, aenc*, or instruentalit* thereof, includin an* overnent-o)ned or controlled corporation, or its su+sidiar*, durin his ter of office. 5e shall not intervene in an* atter+efore an* office of the 2overnent for his pecuniar* +enefit or )here he a* +e called upon to act on accountof his office. >Ephasis supplied?

Clearl*, allo)in leislators to intervene in the various phases of proect ipleentation A a atter +eforeanother office of overnent A renders the suscepti+le to ta&in undue advantae of their o)n office.

/he Court, ho)ever, cannot copletel* aree that the sae post-enactent authorit* andJor the individualleislators control of his PD30 per se )ould allo) hi to perpetuate hiself in office. Indeed, )hile theConressional Por& $arrel and a leislators use thereof a* +e lin&ed to this area of interest, the use of hisPD30 for re-election purposes is a atter )hich ust +e anal*8ed +ased on particular facts and on a case-to-case +asis.

0inall*, )hile the Court accounts for the possi+ilit* that the close operational proxiit* +et)een leislators andthe Executive departent, throuh the forers post-enactent participation, a* affect the process ofipeachent, this atter larel* +orders on the doain of politics and does not strictl* concern the Por& $arrelS*stes intrinsic constitutionalit*. 3s such, it is an iproper su+ect of udicial assessent.

In su, insofar as its post-enactent features dilute conressional oversiht and violate Section 6, 3rticle Iof the =;: Constitution, thus ipairin pu+lic accounta+ilit*, the %@4 PD30 3rticle and other fors of

Conressional Por& $arrel of siilar nature are deeed as unconstitutional.

6. Political D*nasties.

One of the petitioners su+its that the Por& $arrel S*ste ena+les politicians )ho are e+ers of politicald*nasties to accuulate funds to perpetuate theselves in po)er, in contravention of Section %', 3rticle II ofthe =;: Constitution%%()hich states that1

Sec. %'. /he State shall uarantee eual access to opportunities for pu+lic service, and prohi+it politicald*nasties as a* +e defined +* la). >Ephasis and underscorin supplied?

3t the outset, suffice it to state that the foreoin provision is considered as not self-executin due to theualif*in phrase "as a* +e defined +* la)." In this respect, said provision does not, +* and of itself, provide a

udiciall* enforcea+le constitutional riht +ut erel* specifies uideline for leislative or executiveaction.%%'/herefore, since there appears to +e no standin la) )hich cr*stalli8es the polic* on political d*nastiesfor enforceent, the Court ust defer fro rulin on this issue.

In an* event, the Court finds the a+ove-stated aruent on this score to +e larel* speculative since it has not+een properl* deonstrated ho) the Por& $arrel S*ste )ould +e a+le to propaate political d*nasties.

(.


25/70

/he States polic* on local autono* is principall* stated in Section %(, 3rticle II and Sections % and 4, 3rticle of the =;: Constitution )hich read as follo)s1

3R/IC


26/70

Philconsa descri+ed the ==6 CD0 as an attept "to a&e eual the uneual" and that "it is also a reconitionthat individual e+ers of Conress, far ore than the President and their conressional colleaues, are li&el*to +e &no)ledea+le a+out the needs of their respective constituents and the priorit* to +e iven eachproect."%4Dra)in strenth fro this pronounceent, previous leislators ustified its existence +* statin that"the relativel* sall proects ipleented under the Conressional Por& $arrel copleent and lin& thenational developent oals to the countr*side and rassroots as )ell as to depressed areas )hich areoverloo&ed +* central aencies )hich are preoccupied )ith ea-proects.%4%Siilarl*, in his 3uust %4, %@4

speech on the "a+olition" of PD30 and +udetar* refors, President 3uino entioned that the ConressionalPor& $arrel )as oriinall* esta+lished for a )orth* oal, )hich is to ena+le the representatives to identif*proects for counities that the no), aended +* PD ==4?,)hich respectivel* provide for the #alapa*a 0unds and the Presidential Social 0und, as invalidappropriations la)s since the* do not have the "priar* and specific" purpose of authori8in the release ofpu+lic funds fro the National /reasur*. Petitioners su+it that Section ; of PD =@ is not an appropriation la)since the "priar* and specific purpose of PD =@ is the creation of an Ener* Developent $oard andSection ; thereof onl* created a Special 0und incidental thereto.%4:In siilar reard, petitioners arue that
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt231http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt232http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt232http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt233http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt234http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt234http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt235http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt236http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt237http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt231http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt232http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt233http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt234http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt235http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt236http://ww

admin full text.docx

Documents