Procedural Issues
Click here for the shorter digest (substantive issues only). 1.) Whether or not (WON) the issues raised in the consolidated petitions involve an actual
Click here for the full text of the Decision. and justiciable controversy
* FACTS:
In the Philippines, the pork barrel (a term of American-English origin) has been commonly
2.) WON the issues raised in the consolidated petitions are matters of policy subject to
referred to as lump-sum, discretionary funds of Members of the Legislature (Congressional
judicial review
Pork Barrel). However, it has also come to refer to certain funds to the Executive. The
Congressional Pork Barrel can be traced from Act 3044 (Public Works Act of 1922), the
Support for Local Development Projects during the Marcos period, the Mindanao 3.) WON petitioners have legal standing to sue
Development Fund and Visayas Development Fund and later the Countrywide Development
Fund (CDF) under the Corazon Aquino presidency, and the Priority Development Assistance
Fund under the Joseph Estrada administration, as continued by the Gloria-Macapagal Arroyo 4.) WON the 1994 Decision of the Supreme Court (the Court) on Philippine Constitution
and the present Benigno Aquino III administrations. Association v. Enriquez (Philconsa) and the 2012 Decision of the Court on Lawyers Against
Monopoly and Poverty v. Secretary of Budget and Management (LAMP) bar the re-litigation
of the issue of constitutionality of the pork barrel system under the principles of res
The Presidential Pork Barrel questioned by the petitioners include the Malampaya Fund judicata and stare decisis
and the Presidential Social Fund. The Malampaya Fund was created as a special fund under B. Substantive Issues on the Congressional Pork Barrel
Section 8, Presidential Decree (PD) 910 by then-President Ferdinand Marcos to help WON the 2013 PDAF Article and all other Congressional Pork Barrel Laws similar to it are
intensify, strengthen, and consolidate government efforts relating to the exploration, unconstitutional considering that they violate the principles of/constitutional provisions on
exploitation, and development of indigenous energy resources vital to economic growth. The
Presidential Social Fund was created under Section 12, Title IV, PD 1869 (1983) or the
Charter of the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), as amended by 1.) separation of powers
PD 1993 issued in 1985. 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 2.) non-delegability of legislative power
under the regular budget. It is sourced from the share of the government in the aggregate
gross earnings of PAGCOR. 3.) checks and balances
Over the years, pork funds have increased tremendously. In 1996, an anonymous source 4.) accountability
later identified as former Marikina City Romeo Candazo revealed that huge sums of
government money went into the pockets of legislators as kickbacks. In 2004, several
citizens sought the nullification of the PDAF as enacted in the 2004 General Appropriations 5.) political dynasties
Act for being unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court dismissed the petition. In July 2013,
the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) began its probe into allegations that the
government has been defrauded of some P10 Billion over the past 10 years by a syndicate 6.) local autonomy
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 whistle-blowers
who declared that JLN Corporation JLN standing for Janet Lim Napoles had swindled C. Substantive Issues on the Presidential Pork Barrel
billions of pesos from the public coffers for ghost projects using no fewer than 20 dummy WON the phrases:
non-government organizations for an entire decade. In August 2013, the Commission on (a) and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President under Section
Audit (CoA) released the results of a three-year audit investigation covering the use of 8 of PD 910 relating to the Malampaya Funds, and
legislators PDAF from 2007 to 2009, or during the last three (3) years of the Arroyo (b) to finance the priority infrastructure development projects and to finance the restoration
administration. of damaged or destroyed facilities due to calamities, as may be directed and authorized by
the Office of the President of the Philippines under Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by
PD 1993, relating to the Presidential Social Fund,
As for the Presidential Pork Barrel, whistle-blowers alleged that [a]t least P900 Million
from royalties in the operation of the Malampaya gas project intended for agrarian reform
beneficiaries has gone into a dummy [NGO]. are unconstitutional insofar as they constitute undue delegations of legislative power
Facts: On 25 September 2013, Senator Jinggoy Estrada delivered a privileged speech before
the Senate, alleging that Senators had received an incentive worth P50 million for voting in
favor of the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. This spurred Department of
Budget Management (DBM) Secretary Florencio Abad III to issue a statement that the funds
released were part of the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), which was designed by
the DBM as a stimulus package to increase government spending. The DAP was allegedly
first evidenced by a memorandum of Sec. Abad dated 12 October 2011, asking for the
Presidents approval for the implementation of the DAP. It listed sources of funds amounting
to P72.11 billion, along with proposed priority projects to be funded. The billions of pesos
for DAP, according to the DBM, were collected from the savings of the government and its
Unprogrammed Funds. The savings included: (a) Unreleased appropriations for unfilled
positions which will lapse at the end of the year; (b) Available balances from completed or
discontinued projects; (c) Unreleased appropriations of slow moving projects and
discontinued projects; and (d) Withdrawn unobligated allotments which have earlier been
released to NGA All these events gave rise to questions on the legality of this move by the
DBM. Nine petitions were filed before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality
of the DAP, National Budget Circular (NBC) No. 542, and related issuances of the
Department of Budget and Management (DBM) implementing the DAP.
Issues: 1. Whether or not the appropriation and withdrawn unobligated allotments under the
DAP were savings in accordance with Section 25 (5), Article VI of the Constitution 2.
Whether or not cross-border transfer or augmentations transpire in contravention of Section
25 (5), Article VI of the Constitution 3. Whether or not the DAP violated the equal protection
clause and the principle of separation of powers 4. Whether or not the doctrine of operative
fact should apply to projects funded by the DAP
Held/ Ratio: 1. No. The DAP did not meet the requisites of Section 25 (5) First, the
General Appropriations Act (GAA) of 2011 and 2012 lacked provisions authorizing the
transfer of funds under DAP; second, there were no savings from which funds should be
sourced; and third, no funds from savings could be transferred under the DAP to augment
deficient items not provided in the GAA. 2. Yes. The records show that funds amounting to
P143.7 million and P250 million were transferred under the DAP respectively to the
Commission on Audit and the House of CHIEF JUSTICE CLAUDIO TEEHANKEE
CENTER FOR THE RULE OF LAW Teehankee Library, 4/F Integritas, Ateneo Professional
Schools, Rockwell Center, Makati City Representatives. The respondents in the case also
stated that the President made available to the Commission on Elections the savings of the
executive department. 3. The Court ruled that the argument that the DAP was used to
discriminate against some legislators lacks factual and legal basis. Also, it pointed that it was
merely speculative to conclude that the DAP effectively stayed the hands of legislators from
conducting inquires on the executive department. 4. It depends. The doctrine of operative fact
shall apply to government projects that can no longer be undone and with beneficiaries who
relied on the DAP in good faith. However, it cannot apply to authors of the DAP, unless there
are concrete findings of good faith.