Paredes Case 31 Pages

8/9/2019 Paredes Case 31 Pages

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paredes-case-31-pages 1/31

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 208566 November 19, 2013

GRECO ANTONIOUS BEA B. BE!GICA "OSE M.#I!!EGAS "R. "OSE !. GON$A!E$ REUBEN M. ABANTE%&' (UINTIN PAREES SAN IEGO, Petitioners,vs.)ONORAB!E E*ECUTI#E SECRETAR+ PA(UITO N.OC)OA "R. SECRETAR+ O BUGET AN MANAGEMENT!ORENCIO B. ABA, NATIONA! TREASURER ROSA!IA#. E !EON SENATE O T)E P)I!IPPINES re-ree&/e' bRAN!IN M. RI!ON m 4%-%4/ % SENATEPRESIENT %&' )OUSE O REPRESENTATI#ESre-ree&/e' b E!ICIANO S. BE!MONTE, "R. & 4%-%4/ % SPEAER O T)E )OUSE, Respondents.

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

G.R. No. 20893

SOCIA! "USTICE SOCIET+ S"S7 PRESIENT SAMSON S.A!CANTARA, Petitioner,vs.)ONORAB!E RAN!IN M. RI!ON & 4%-%4/ %SENATE PRESIENT %&' )ONORAB!E E!ICIANO S.BE!MONTE, "R., & 4%-%4/ % SPEAER O T)E)OUSE O REPRESENTATI#ES, Respondents.

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

G.R. No. 209251

PERITO M. NEPOMUCENO, ormer M%orBo%4,M%r&':e ormer Prov&4%; Bo%r' Member Prov&4e o< M%r&':e, Petitioner,vs.PRESIENT BENIGNO SIMEON C. A(UINO III= %&'SECRETAR+ !ORENCIO BUTC) ABA, EPARTMENTO BUGET AN MANAGEMENT, Respondents.

D E C ! " N

PER!ASBERNABE, J.:

#Experience is the oracle of truth.#

$

-%a&es Madison

Before the Court are consolidated petitions' ta(en under Rule)* of the Rules of Court, all of +hich assail the constitutionalitof the Por( Barrel !ste&. Due to the co&plexit of the subect&atter, the Court shall heretofore discuss the sste&sconceptual underpinnin/s before detailin/ the particulars of theconstitutional challen/e.

0he 1acts

. Por( Barrel2 3eneral Concept.

#Por( Barrel# is political parlance of A&erican -En/lishori/in.4 5istoricall, its usa/e &a be traced to thede/radin/ ritual of rollin/ out a barrel stuffed +ith por(to a &ultitude of blac( slaves +ho +ould cast theirfa&ished bodies into the porcine feast to assua/e

their hun/er +ith &orsels co&in/ fro& the /enerositof their +ell-fed &aster .6 0his practice +as laterco&pared to the actions of A&erican le/islators intrin/ to direct federal bud/ets in favor of theirdistricts.* 7hile the advent of refri/eration has &adethe actual por( barrel obsolete, it persists in referenceto political bills that #brin/ ho&e the bacon# to ale/islators district and constituents.) n a &oretechnical sense, #Por( Barrel# refers to anappropriation of /overn&ent spendin/ &eant forlocali8ed proects and secured solel or pri&aril tobrin/ &one to a representative9s district.:!o&escholars on the subect further use it to refer tole/islative control of local appropriations.;

n the Philippines, #Por( Barrel# has been co&&onlreferred to as lu&p-su&, discretionar funds ofMe&bers of the <e/islature,= althou/h, as +ill be laterdiscussed, its usa/e +ould evolve in reference tocertain funds of the Executive.

. 5istor of Con/ressional Por( Barrel in the Philippines.

A. Pre-Martial <a+ Era >$=''-$=:'?.

Act 4@66,$@ or the Public 7or(s Act of $='',is considered$$ as the earliest for& of#Con/ressional Por( Barrel# in the

Philippines since the utili8ation of the fundsappropriated therein +ere subected to post-enact&ent le/islator approval. Particularl, inthe area of fund release, !ection 4$' providesthat the su&s appropriated for certain public+or(s proects$4 #shall be distributed x x xsubect to the approval of a oint co&&itteeelected b the !enate and the 5ouse ofRepresentatives. #0he co&&ittee fro& each5ouse &a also authori8e one of its&e&bers to approve the distribution &adeb the !ecretar of Co&&erce andCo&&unications.#$6 Also, in the area of fundreali/n&ent, the sa&e section provides thatthe said secretar, #+ith the approval of said

oint co&&ittee, or of the authori8ed&e&bers thereof, &a, for the purposes ofsaid distribution, transfer unexpendedportions of an ite& of appropriation underthis Act to an other ite& hereunder.#

n $=*@, it has been docu&ented$* that post-enact&ent le/islator participation broadenedfro& the areas of fund release andreali/n&ent to the area of proectidentification. Durin/ that ear, the

1

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#fnt1












































&echanics of the public +or(s act +as&odified to the extent that the discretion ofchoosin/ proects +as transferred fro& the!ecretar of Co&&erce andCo&&unications to le/islators. #1or the firstti&e, the la+ carried a list of proectsselected b Me&bers of Con/ress, thebein/ the representatives of the people,either on their o+n account or bconsultation +ith local officials or civilleaders.#$) Durin/ this period, the por( barrel

process co&&enced +ith local /overn&entcouncils, civil /roups, and individualsappealin/ to Con/ress&en or !enators forproects. Petitions that +ere acco&&odatedfor&ed part of a le/islators allocation, andthe a&ount each le/islator +ould eventuall/et is deter&ined in a caucus convened bthe &aorit. 0he a&ount +as then inte/ratedinto the ad&inistration bill prepared b theDepart&ent of Public 7or(s andCo&&unications. 0hereafter, the !enate andthe 5ouse of Representatives added theiro+n provisions to the bill until it +as si/nedinto la+ b the President the Public 7or(s

Act.$: n the $=)@s, ho+ever, por( barrelle/islation reportedl ceased in vie+ of thestale&ate bet+een the 5ouse ofRepresentatives and the !enate.$;

B. Martial <a+ Era >$=:'-$=;)?.

7hile the previous# Con/ressional Por(Barrel# +as apparentl discontinued in $=:'after Martial <a+ +as declared, an era +hen#one &an controlled the le/islature,#$= thereprieve +as onl te&porar. B $=;', theBatasan/ Pa&bansa had alread introduceda ne+ ite& in the 3eneral Appropriations Act>3AA? called the# !upport for <ocalDevelop&ent Proects# >!<DP? under thearticle on #National Aid to <ocal 3overn&entnits#. Based on reports,'@ it +as under the!<DP that the practice of /ivin/ lu&p-su&allocations to individual le/islators be/an,+ith each asse&bl&anreceivin/ P*@@,@@@.@@. 0hereafter,asse&bl&en +ould co&&unicate theirproect preferences to the Ministr of Bud/etand Mana/e&ent for approval. 0hen, thesaid &inistr +ould release the allocationpapers to the Ministr of <ocal 3overn&ents,+hich +ould, in turn, issue the chec(s to thecit or &unicipal treasurers in the

asse&bl&ans localit. t has been furtherreported that #Con/ressional Por( Barrel#proects under the !<DP also be/an to cover not onl public +or(s proects, or so- called#hard proects#, but also #soft proects#,'$ ornon-public +or(s proects such as those+hich +ould fall under the cate/ories of,a&on/ others, education, health andlivelihood.''

C. Post-Martial <a+ Era2

Cora8on Couan/co Auino Ad&inistration>$=;)-$=='?.

After the ED!A People Po+er Revolution in$=;) and the restoration of Philippinede&ocrac, #Con/ressional Por( Barrel# +asrevived in the for& of the #MindanaoDevelop&ent 1und# and the #isaasDevelop&ent 1und# +hich +ere created +ithlu&p-su& appropriations of P6;@ Million

and P'6@ Million, respectivel, for thefundin/ of develop&ent proects in theMindanao and isaas areas in $=;=. t hasbeen docu&ented'4 that the cla&or raised bthe !enators and the <u8on le/islators for asi&ilar fundin/, pro&pted the creation of the#Countr+ide Develop&ent 1und# >CD1?+hich +as inte/rated into the $==@3AA'6 +ith an initial fundin/ ofP'.4 Billion tocover #s&all local infrastructure and otherpriorit co&&unit proects.#

nder the 3AAs for the ears $==$ and$==','* CD1 funds +ere, +ith the approval ofthe President, to be released directl to the

i&ple&entin/ a/encies but #subect to thesub&ission of the reuired list of proectsand activities.#Althou/h the 3AAs fro& $==@to $==' +ere silent as to the a&ounts ofallocations of the individual le/islators, as+ell as their participation in the identificationof proects, it has been reported') that b$==', Representatives +ere receivin/P$'.*Million each in CD1 funds, +hile !enators+ere receivin/ P$; Million each, +ithout anli&itation or ualification, and that the couldidentif an (ind of proect, fro& hard orinfrastructure proects such as roads,brid/es, and buildin/s to #soft proects# suchas textboo(s, &edicines, and scholarships.':

D. 1idel alde8 Ra&os >Ra&os? Ad&inistration >$=='-$==;?.

0he follo+in/ ear, or in $==4,'; the 3AAexplicitl stated that the release of CD1funds +as to be &ade upon the sub&issionof the list of proects and activities identifiedb, a&on/ others, individual le/islators. 1orthe first ti&e, the $==4 CD1 Article includedan allocation for the ice-President.'= Assuch, Representatives +ere allocated P$'.*Million each in CD1 funds, !enators, P$;Million each, and the ice-President, P'@Million.

n $==6,4@ $==*,4$ and $==),4' the 3AAscontained the sa&e provisions on proectidentification and fund release as found inthe $==4 CD1 Article. n addition, ho+ever,the Depart&ent of Bud/et and Mana/e&ent>DBM? +as directed to sub&it reports to the!enate Co&&ittee on 1inance and the5ouse Co&&ittee on Appropriations on thereleases &ade fro& the funds.44

2


















































nder the $==:46 CD1 Article, Me&bers ofCon/ress and the ice-President, inconsultation +ith the i&ple&entin/ a/encconcerned, +ere directed to sub&it to theDBM the list of *@ of proects to be fundedfro& their respective CD1 allocations +hichshall be dul endorsed b >a? the !enatePresident and the Chair&an of theCo&&ittee on 1inance, in the case of the!enate, and >b? the !pea(er of the 5ouse ofRepresentatives and the Chair&an of the

Co&&ittee on Appropriations, in the case ofthe 5ouse of RepresentativesF +hile the listfor the re&ainin/ *@ +as to be sub&itted+ithin six >)? &onths thereafter. 0he sa&earticle also stated that the proect list, +hich+ould be published b the DBM,4* #shall bethe basis for the release of funds# and that#no funds appropriated herein shall bedisbursed for proects not included in the listherein reuired.#

0he follo+in/ ear, or in $==;,4) thefore/oin/ provisions re/ardin/ the reuiredlists and endorse&ents +ere reproduced,

except that the publication of the proect list+as no lon/er reuired as the list itselfsufficed for the release of CD1 1unds.

0he CD1 +as not, ho+ever, the lone for& of#Con/ressional Por( Barrel# at that ti&e."ther for&s of #Con/ressional Por( Barrel#+ere reportedl fashioned and inserted intothe 3AA >called #Con/ressional nsertions#or #Cs#? in order to perpetuate the ad&inistrations political a/enda.4: t has beenarticulated that since Cs #for&ed part andparcel of the bud/ets of executivedepart&ents, the +ere not easilidentifiable and +ere thus harder to &onitor.#Nonetheless, the la+&a(ers the&selves as+ell as the finance and bud/et officials of thei&ple&entin/ a/encies, as +ell as the DBM,purportedl (ne+ about theinsertions.4; Exa&ples of these Cs are theDepart&ent of Education >DepEd? !choolBuildin/ 1und, the Con/ressional nitiative

Allocations, the Public 7or(s 1und, the ElNiGo 1und, and the Povert Alleviation1und.4= 0he allocations for the !choolBuildin/ 1und, particularl, Hshall be &adeupon prior consultation +ith therepresentative of the le/islative districtconcerned.I6@ !i&ilarl, the le/islators had

the po+er to direct ho+, +here and +henthese appropriations +ere to be spent.6$

E. %oseph Eercito Estrada >Estrada? Ad&inistration >$==;-'@@$?.

n $===,6' the CD1 +as re&oved in the 3AAand replaced b three >4? separate for&s ofCs, na&el, the #1ood !ecurit Pro/ra&1und,#64 the #<in/ap Para !a MahihirapPro/ra& 1und,#66and the #RuralJrban

Develop&ent nfrastructure Pro/ra&1und,#6* all of +hich contained a specialprovision reuirin/ #prior consultation# +iththe Me&ber s of Con/ress for the release ofthe funds.

t +as in the ear '@@@6) that the #PrioritDevelop&ent Assistance 1und# >PDA1?appeared in the 3AA. 0he reuire&ent of#prior consultation +ith the respective

Representative of the District# before PDA1funds +ere directl released to thei&ple&entin/ a/enc concerned +asexplicitl stated in the '@@@ PDA1 Article.Moreover, reali/n&ent of funds to anexpense cate/or +as expressl allo+ed,+ith the sole condition that no a&ount shallbe used to fund personal services and otherpersonnel benefits.6: 0he succeedin/ PDA1provisions re&ained the sa&e in vie+ of there-enact&ent6; of the '@@@ 3AA for the ear'@@$.

1. 3loria Macapa/al-Arroo >Arroo? Ad&inistration >'@@$-'@$@?.

0he '@@'6= PDA1 Article +as brief andstrai/htfor+ard as it &erel contained asin/le special provision orderin/ the releaseof the funds directl to the i&ple&entin/a/enc or local /overn&ent unit concerned,+ithout further ualifications. 0he follo+in/ear, '@@4,*@ the sa&e sin/le provision +aspresent, +ith si&pl an expansion ofpurpose and express authorit to reali/n.Nevertheless, the provisions in the '@@4bud/ets of the Depart&ent of Public 7or(sand 5i/h+as*$ >DP75? and theDepEd*' reuired prior consultation +ith

Me&bers of Con/ress on the aspects ofi&ple&entation dele/ation and proect listsub&ission, respectivel. n '@@6, the '@@43AA +as re-enacted.*4

n '@@*,*6 the PDA1 Article provided that thePDA1 shall be used #to fund prioritpro/ra&s and proects under the ten pointa/enda of the national /overn&ent and shallbe released directl to the i&ple&entin/a/encies.# t also introduced the pro/ra&&enu concept,** +hich is essentiall a list of/eneral pro/ra&s and i&ple&entin/a/encies fro& +hich a particular PDA1proect &a be subseuentl chosen b theidentifin/ authorit. 0he '@@* 3AA +as re-enacted*) in '@@) and hence, operated onthe sa&e bases. n si&ilar re/ard, thepro/ra& &enu concept +as consistentlinte/rated into the'@@:,*: '@@;,*; '@@=,*= and '@$@)@ 3AAs.

0extuall, the PDA1 Articles fro& '@@' to'@$@ +ere silent +ith respect to the specifica&ounts allocated for the individualle/islators, as +ell as their participation in

3










































































the proposal and identification of PDA1proects to be funded. n contrast to thePDA1 Articles, ho+ever, the provisionsunder the DepEd !chool Buildin/ Pro/ra&and the DP75 bud/et, si&ilar to itspredecessors, explicitl reuired priorconsultation +ith the concerned Me&ber ofCon/ress)$anent certain aspects of proecti&ple&entation.

!i/nificantl, it +as durin/ this era thatprovisions +hich allo+ed for&al participationof non-/overn&ental or/ani8ations >N3"? inthe i&ple&entation of /overn&ent proects+ere introduced. n the !upple&entalBud/et for '@@), +ith respect to theappropriation for school buildin/s, N3"s+ere, b la+, encoura/ed to participate. 1orsuch purpose, the la+ stated that #thea&ount of at least P'*@ Million of the P*@@Million allotted for the construction andco&pletion of school buildin/s shall be &adeavailable to N3"s includin/ the 1ederationof 1ilipino-Chinese Cha&bers of Co&&erceand ndustr, nc. for its #"peration Barrio

!chool# pro/ra&, +ith capabilit and proventrac( records in the construction of publicschool buildin/s x x x.#)' 0he sa&e allocation+as &ade available to N3"s in the '@@:and '@@= 3AAs under the DepEdBud/et.)4 Also, it +as in '@@: that the3overn&ent Procure&ent PolicBoard)6 >3PPB? issued Resolution No. $'-'@@: dated %une '=, '@@: >3PPBResolution $'-'@@:?, a&endin/ thei&ple&entin/ rules and re/ulations)* of RA=$;6,)) the 3overn&ent Procure&entRefor& Act, to include, as a for& ofne/otiated procure&ent,): the procedure+hereb the Procurin/ Entit);>the

i&ple&entin/ a/enc? &a enter into a&e&orandu& of a/ree&ent +ith an N3",provided that #an appropriation la+ orordinance ear&ar(s an a&ount to bespecificall contracted out to N3"s.#)=

3. Present Ad&inistration >'@$@-Present?.

Differin/ fro& previous PDA1 Articles butsi&ilar to the CD1 Articles, the '@$$:@ PDA1

Article included an express state&ent onlu&p-su& a&ounts allocated for individualle/islators and the ice-President2Representatives +ere /iven P:@ Million

each, bro(en do+n into P6@ Million for #hardproects# and P4@ Million for #soft proects#F+hile P'@@ Million +as /iven to each!enator as +ell as the ice-President, +itha P$@@ Million allocation each for #hard# and#soft proects.# <i(e+ise, a provision onreali/n&ent of funds +as included, but +iththe ualification that it &a be allo+ed onlonce. 0he sa&e provision also allo+ed the!ecretaries of Education, 5ealth, !ocial7elfare and Develop&ent, nterior and <ocal3overn&ent, Environ&ent and Natural

Resources, Ener/, and Public 7or(s and5i/h+as to reali/n PDA1 1unds, +ith thefurther conditions that2 >a? reali/n&ent is+ithin the sa&e i&ple&entin/ unit and sa&eproect cate/or as the ori/inal proect, forinfrastructure proectsF >b? allot&ent releasedhas not et been obli/ated for the ori/inalscope of +or(, and >c? the reuest forreali/n&ent is +ith the concurrence of thele/islator concerned.:$

n the '@$':' and '@$4:4 PDA1 Articles, it isstated that the #identification of proectsandJor desi/nation of beneficiaries shallconfor& to the priorit list, standard ordesi/n prepared b each i&ple&entin/a/enc >priorit list reuire&ent? x x x.#5o+ever, as practiced, it +ould still be theindividual le/islator +ho +ould choose andidentif the proect fro& the said priorit list.:6

Provisions on le/islator allocations:* as +ellas fund reali/n&ent:) +ere included in the'@$' and '@$4 PDA1 ArticlesF but theallocation for the ice-President, +hich +as

pe//ed at P'@@ Million in the '@$$ 3AA, hadbeen deleted. n addition, the '@$4 PDA1

Article no+ allo+ed <3s to be identified asi&ple&entin/ a/encies if the have thetechnical capabilit to i&ple&ent theproects.:: <e/islators +ere also allo+ed toidentif pro/ra&sJproects, except forassistance to indi/ent patients andscholarships, outside of his le/islative districprovided that he secures the +rittenconcurrence of the le/islator of the intendedoutside-district, endorsed b the !pea(er ofthe 5ouse.:; 1inall, an reali/n&ent ofPDA1 funds, &odification and revision ofproect identification, as +ell as reuests forrelease of funds, +ere all reuired to befavorabl endorsed b the 5ouse Co&&itteeon Appropriations and the !enate Co&&itteeon 1inance, as the case &a be.:=

. 5istor of Presidential Por( Barrel in the Philippines.

7hile the ter& #Por( Barrel# has been tpicallassociated +ith lu&p-su&, discretionar funds ofMe&bers of Con/ress, the present cases and therecent controversies on the &atter have, ho+ever,sho+n that the ter&s usa/e has expanded to includecertain funds of the President such as the Mala&paa1unds and the Presidential !ocial 1und.

"n the one hand, the Mala&paa 1unds +as createdas a special fund under !ection ;;@ of PresidentialDecree No. >PD? =$@,;$ issued b then President1erdinand E. Marcos >Marcos? on March '', $=:). nenactin/ the said la+, Marcos reco/ni8ed the need toset up a special fund to help intensif, stren/then, andconsolidate /overn&ent efforts relatin/ to theexploration, exploitation, and develop&ent ofindi/enous ener/ resources vital to econo&ic/ro+th.;' Due to the ener/-related activities of the

4



























































/overn&ent in the Mala&paa natural /as field inPala+an, or the #Mala&paa Deep 7ater 3as-to-Po+er Proect#,;4 the special fund created under PD=$@ has been currentl labeled as Mala&paa 1unds.

"n the other hand the Presidential !ocial 1und +ascreated under !ection $', 0itle ;6 of PD $;)=,;* orthe Charter of the Philippine A&use&ent and 3a&in/Corporation >PA3C"R?. PD $;)= +as si&ilarl issuedb Marcos on %ul $$, $=;4. More than t+o >'? ears

after, he a&ended PD $;)= and accordin/l issuedPD $==4 on "ctober 4$, $=;*,;) a&endin/ !ection$';: of the for&er la+. As it stands, the Presidential!ocial 1und has been described as a special fundin/facilit &ana/ed and ad&inistered b the PresidentialMana/e&ent !taff throu/h +hich the Presidentprovides direct assistance to priorit pro/ra&s andproects not funded under the re/ular bud/et. t issourced fro& the share of the /overn&ent in thea//re/ate /ross earnin/s of PA3C"R.;;

. Controversies in the Philippines.

"ver the decades, #por(# funds in the Philippines

have increased tre&endousl,

;=

o+in/ in no s&all partto previous Presidents +ho reportedl used the #Por(Barrel# in order to /ain con/ressional support.=@ t +asin $==) +hen the first controvers surroundin/ the#Por( Barrel# erupted. 1or&er Mari(ina CitRepresentative Ro&eo Canda8o >Canda8o?, then ananon&ous source, #ble+ the lid on the hu/e su&s of/overn&ent &one that re/ularl +ent into thepoc(ets of le/islators in the for& of (ic(bac(s.#=$ 5esaid that #the (ic(bac(s +ere !"P >standardoperatin/ procedure? a&on/ le/islators and ran/edfro& a lo+ $= percent to a hi/h *' percent of the costof each proect, +hich could be anthin/ fro&dred/in/, rip rappin/, sphaltin/, concretin/, andconstruction of school buildin/s.#=' #"ther sources of

(ic(bac(s that Canda8o identified +ere public fundsintended for &edicines and textboo(s. A fe+ daslater, the tale of the &one trail beca&e the bannerstor of the Philippine Dail nuirer issue of Au/ust$4, $==), acco&panied b an illustration of a roastedpi/.#=4 #0he publication of the stories, includin/ thoseabout con/ressional initiative allocations of certainla+&a(ers, includin/ P4.) Billion for a Con/ress&an,spar(ed public outra/e.#=6

0hereafter, or in '@@6, several concerned citi8enssou/ht the nullification of the PDA1 as enacted in the'@@6 3AA for bein/ unconstitutional. nfortunatel,for lac( of #an pertinent evidentiar support thatille/al &isuse of PDA1 in the for& of (ic(bac(s hasbeco&e a co&&on exercise of unscrupulousMe&bers of Con/ress,# the petition +as dis&issed.=*

Recentl, or in %ul of the present ear, the NationalBureau of nvesti/ation >NB? be/an its probe intoalle/ations that #the /overn&ent has been defraudedof so&e P$@ Billion over the past $@ ears b asndicate usin/ funds fro& the por( barrel ofla+&a(ers and various /overn&ent a/encies forscores of /host proects.#=) 0he investi/ation +asspa+ned b s+orn affidavits of six >)? +histle-blo+ers

+ho declared that %<N Corporation #%<N# standin/for %anet <i& Napoles >Napoles? had s+indledbillions of pesos fro& the public coffers for #/hostproects# usin/ no fe+er than '@ du&& N3"s for anentire decade. 7hile the N3"s +ere supposedl theulti&ate recipients of PDA1 funds, the +histle-blo+ersdeclared that the &one +as diverted into Napolesprivate accounts.=: 0hus, after its investi/ation on theNapoles controvers, cri&inal co&plaints +ere filedbefore the "ffice of the "&buds&an, char/in/ five >*?la+&a(ers for Plunder, and three >4? other la+&a(ers

for Malversation, Direct Briber, and iolation of the Anti-3raft and Corrupt Practices Act. Alsoreco&&ended to be char/ed in the co&plaints areso&e of the la+&a(ers chiefs -of-staff orrepresentatives, the heads and other officials of three>4? i&ple&entin/ a/encies, and the severalpresidents of the N3"s set up b Napoles.=;

"n Au/ust $), '@$4, the Co&&ission on Audit >CoA?released the results of a three-ear auditinvesti/ation==coverin/ the use of le/islators9 PDA1fro& '@@: to '@@=, or durin/ the last three >4? earsof the Arroo ad&inistration. 0he purpose of the audit+as to deter&ine the propriet of releases of funds

under PDA1 and the arious nfrastructures includin/<ocal Proects ><P?$@@ b the DBM, the application othese funds and the i&ple&entation of proects b theappropriate i&ple&entin/ a/encies and several/overn&ent-o+ned-and-controlled corporations>3"CCs?.$@$ 0he total releases covered b the audita&ounted to P;.4:6 Billion in PDA1 and P4'.))6Billion in <P, representin/ *; and 4',respectivel, of the total PDA1 and <P releases that+ere found to have been &ade nation+ide durin/ theaudit period.$@' Accordin/l, the Co As findin/scontained in its Report No. '@$'-@4 >CoA Report?,entitled #Priorit Develop&ent Assistance 1und>PDA1? and arious nfrastructures includin/ <ocalProects ><P?,# +ere &ade public, the hi/hli/hts of

+hich are as follo+s2$@4

K A&ounts released for proects identified ba considerable nu&ber of le/islatorssi/nificantl exceeded their respectiveallocations.

K A&ounts +ere released for proectsoutside of le/islative districts of sponsorin/&e&bers of the <o+er 5ouse.

K 0otal <P releases for the periodexceeded the total a&ount appropriatedunder the '@@: to '@@= 3AAs.

K nfrastructure proects +ere constructed onprivate lots +ithout these havin/ been turnedover to the /overn&ent.

K !i/nificant a&ounts +ere released toi&ple&entin/ a/encies +ithout the lattersendorse&ent and +ithout considerin/ their&andated functions, ad&inistrative andtechnical capabilities to i&ple&ent proects.

5


























































K &ple&entation of &ost livelihood proects+as not underta(en b the i&ple&entin/a/encies the&selves but b N3"s endorsedb the proponent le/islators to +hich the1unds +ere transferred.

K 0he funds +ere transferred to the N3"s inspite of the absence of an appropriation la+or ordinance.

K !election of the N3"s +ere not co&pliant+ith la+ and re/ulations.

K Ei/ht-0+o >;'? N3"s entrusted +ithi&ple&entation of seven hundred seventt+o >::'? proects a&ount to P).$*) Billion+ere either found uestionable, or sub&itteduestionableJspurious docu&ents, or failedto liuidate in +hole or in part their utili8ationof the 1unds.

K Procure&ent b the N3"s, as +ell asso&e i&ple&entin/ a/encies, of /oods andservices reportedl used in the proects +ere

not co&pliant +ith la+.

As for the #Presidential Por( Barrel#, +histle-blo+ersalle/ed that# at least P=@@ Million fro& roalties in theoperation of the Mala&paa /as proect off Pala+anprovince intended for a/rarian refor& beneficiarieshas /one into a du&& N3".#$@6 Accordin/ toincu&bent CoA Chairperson Maria 3racia Pulido 0an>CoA Chairperson?, the CoA is, as of this +ritin/, inthe process of preparin/ #one consolidated report# onthe Mala&paa 1unds.$@*

. 0he Procedural Antecedents.

!purred in lar/e part b the findin/s contained in theCoA Report and the Napoles controvers, severalpetitions +ere lod/ed before the Court si&ilarlsee(in/ that the #Por( Barrel !ste&# be declaredunconstitutional. 0o recount, the relevant proceduralantecedents in these cases are as follo+s2

"n Au/ust ';, '@$4, petitioner !a&son !. Alcantara>Alcantara?, President of the !ocial %ustice !ociet, filed aPetition for Prohibition of even date under Rule )* of the Rulesof Court >Alcantara Petition?, see(in/ that the #Por( Barrel!ste&# be declared unconstitutional, and a +rit of prohibitionbe issued per&anentl restrainin/ respondents 1ran(lin M.Drilon and 1eliciano !. Bel&onte, %r., in their respective

capacities as the incu&bent !enate President and !pea(er ofthe 5ouse of Representatives, fro& further ta(in/ an steps toenact le/islation appropriatin/ funds for the #Por( Barrel!ste&,# in +hatever for& and b +hatever na&e it &a becalled, and fro& approvin/ further releases pursuantthereto.$@) 0he Alcantara Petition +as doc(eted as 3.R. No.'@;6=4.

"n !epte&ber 4, '@$4, petitioners 3reco Antonious Beda B.Bel/ica, %ose <. 3on8ale8, Reuben M. Abante, LuintinParedes !an Die/o >Bel/ica, et al.?, and %ose M. ille/as, %r.

>ille/as? filed an r/ent Petition 1or Certiorari and Prohibition7ith Praer 1or 0he &&ediate ssuance of 0e&porarRestrainin/ "rder >0R"? andJor 7rit of Preli&inar nunctiondated Au/ust ':, '@$4 under Rule )* of the Rules of Court>Bel/ica Petition?, see(in/ that the annual #Por( Barrel!ste&,# presentl e&bodied in the provisions of the 3AA of'@$4 +hich provided for the '@$4 PDA1, and the Executiveslu&p-su&, discretionar funds, such as the Mala&paa 1undsand the Presidential !ocial 1und,$@: be declaredunconstitutional and null and void for bein/ acts constitutin//rave abuse of discretion. Also, the pra that the Court issue

a 0R" a/ainst respondents Pauito N. "choa, %r., 1lorencio B Abad >!ecretar Abad? and Rosalia . De <eon, in theirrespective capacities as the incu&bent Executive !ecretar,!ecretar of the Depart&ent of Bud/et and Mana/e&ent>DBM?, and National 0reasurer, or their a/ents, for the& toi&&ediatel cease an expenditure under the aforesaid funds.1urther, the pra that the Court order the fore/oin/respondents to release to the CoA and to the public2 >a? #theco&plete scheduleJlist of le/islators +ho have availed of theirPDA1 and <P fro& the ears '@@4 to '@$4, specifin/ theuse of the funds, the proect or activit and the recipient entitiesor individuals, and all pertinent data thereto#F and >b? #the useof the Executives lu&p-su&, discretionar funds, includin/ theproceeds fro& the x x x Mala&paa 1unds and re&ittancesfro& the PA3C"R x x x fro& '@@4 to '@$4, specifin/ the x x xproect or activit and the recipient entities or individuals, andall pertinent data thereto.#$@; Also, the pra for the #inclusion inbud/etar deliberations +ith the Con/ress of all presentl off-bud/et, lu&p-su&, discretionar funds includin/, but not li&itedto, proceeds fro& the Mala&paa 1unds and re&ittances fro&the PA3C"R.#$@= 0he Bel/ica Petition +as doc(eted as 3.R.No. '@;*)).$$@

<astl, on !epte&ber *, '@$4, petitioner Pedrito M.Nepo&uceno >Nepo&uceno?, filed a Petition dated Au/ust '4,'@$' >Nepo&uceno Petition?, see(in/ that the PDA1 bedeclared unconstitutional, and a cease and desist order beissued restrainin/ President Beni/no !i&eon !. Auino >President Auino? and !ecretar Abad fro& releasin/ such

funds to Me&bers of Con/ress and, instead, allo+ theirrelease to fund priorit proects identified and approved b the<ocal Develop&ent Councils in consultation +ith the executivedepart&ents, such as the DP75, the Depart&ent of 0ouris&,the Depart&ent of 5ealth, the Depart&ent of 0ransportation,and Co&&unication and the National Econo&ic Develop&ent

Authorit.$$$ 0he Nepo&uceno Petition +as doc(eted as D-$6=*$.$$'

"n !epte&ber $@, '@$4, the Court issued a Resolution of evendate >a? consolidatin/ all casesF >b? reuirin/ publicrespondents to co&&ent on the consolidated petitionsF >c?issuin/ a 0R" >!epte&ber $@, '@$4 0R"? enoinin/ the DBM,National 0reasurer, the Executive !ecretar, or an of the

persons actin/ under their authorit fro& releasin/ >$? there&ainin/ PDA1 allocated to Me&bers of Con/ress under the3AA of '@$4, and >'? Mala&paa 1unds under the phrase #forsuch other purposes as &a be hereafter directed b thePresident# pursuant to !ection ; of PD =$@ but not for thepurpose of #financin/ ener/ resource develop&ent andexploitation pro/ra&s and proects of the /overn&ent under‖the sa&e provisionF and >d? settin/ the consolidated cases for"ral Ar/u&ents on "ctober ;, '@$4.

"n !epte&ber '4, '@$4, the "ffice of the !olicitor 3eneral>"!3? filed a Consolidated Co&&ent >Co&&ent? of even date

6




























before the Court, see(in/ the liftin/, or in the alternative, thepartial liftin/ +ith respect to educational and &edicalassistance purposes, of the Courts !epte&ber $@, '@$4 0R",and that the consolidated petitions be dis&issed for lac( of&erit.$$4

"n !epte&ber '6, '@$4, the Court issued a Resolution of evendate directin/ petitioners to repl to the Co&&ent.

Petitioners, +ith the exception of Nepo&uceno, filed their

respective replies to the Co&&ent2 >a? on !epte&ber 4@, '@$4,ille/as filed a separate Repl dated !epte&ber ':, '@$4>ille/as Repl?F >b? on "ctober $, '@$4, Bel/ica, et al. filed aRepl dated !epte&ber 4@, '@$4 >Bel/ica Repl?F and >c? on"ctober ', '@$4, Alcantara filed a Repl dated "ctober $,'@$4.

"n "ctober $, '@$4, the Court issued an Advisor providin/ for the /uidelines to be observed b the parties for the "ral

Ar/u&ents scheduled on "ctober ;, '@$4. n vie+ of thetechnicalit of the issues &aterial to the present cases,incu&bent !olicitor 3eneral 1rancis 5. %ardele8a >!olicitor3eneral? +as directed to brin/ +ith hi& durin/ the "ral

Ar/u&ents representativeJs fro& the DBM and Con/ress +ho

+ould be able to co&petentl and co&pletel ans+eruestions related to, a&on/ others, the bud/etin/ process andits i&ple&entation. 1urther, the CoA Chairperson +asappointed as a&icus curiae and thereb reuested to appearbefore the Court durin/ the "ral Ar/u&ents.

"n "ctober ; and $@, '@$4, the "ral Ar/u&ents +ereconducted. 0hereafter, the Court directed the parties to sub&ittheir respective &e&oranda +ithin a period of seven >:? das,or until "ctober $:, '@$4, +hich the parties subseuentl did.

0he ssues Before the Court

Based on the pleadin/s, and as refined durin/ the "ral

Ar/u&ents, the follo+in/ are the &ain issues for the Courtsresolution2

. Procedural ssues.

7hether or not >a? the issues raised in the consolidatedpetitions involve an actual and usticiable controversF >b? theissues raised in the consolidated petitions are &atters of policnot subect to udicial revie+F >c? petitioners have le/al standin/to sueF and >d? the Courts Decision dated Au/ust $=, $==6 in3.R. Nos. $$4$@*, $$4$:6, $$4:)), and $$4;;;, entitled#Philippine Constitution Association v. Enriue8#$$6 >Philconsa?and Decision dated April '6, '@$' in 3.R. No. $)6=;:, entitled#<a+ers A/ainst Monopol and Povert v. !ecretar of Bud/et

and Mana/e&ent#$$*

><AMP? bar the re-liti/atio n of the issueof constitutionalit of the #Por( Barrel !ste&# under theprinciples of res udicata and stare decisis.

. !ubstantive ssues on the #Con/ressional Por( Barrel.#

7hether or not the '@$4 PDA1 Article and all otherCon/ressional Por( Barrel <a+s si&ilar thereto areunconstitutional considerin/ that the violate the principlesofJconstitutional provisions on >a? separation of po+ersF >b?non-dele/abilit of le/islative po+erF >c? chec(s and balancesF

>d? accountabilitF >e? political dnastiesF and >f? localautono&.

. !ubstantive ssues on the #Presidential Por( Barrel.#

7hether or not the phrases >a? #and for such other purposesas &a be hereafter directed b the President# under !ection ;of PD =$@,$$) relatin/ to the Mala&paa 1unds, and >b? #tofinance the priorit infrastructure develop&ent proects and tofinance the restoration of da&a/ed or destroed facilities due

to cala&ities, as &a be directed and authori8ed b the "fficeof the President of the Philippines# under !ection $' of PD$;)=, as a&ended b PD $==4, relatin/ to the Presidential!ocial 1und, are unconstitutional insofar as the constituteundue dele/ations of le/islative po+er.

0hese &ain issues shall be resolved in the order that thehave been stated. n addition, the Court shall also tac(lecertain ancillar issues as pro&pted b the present cases.

0he Courts Rulin/

0he petitions are partl /ranted.

. Procedural ssues.

0he prevailin/ rule in constitutional liti/ation is that no uestioninvolvin/ the constitutionalit or validit of a la+ or/overn&ental act &a be heard and decided b the Courtunless there is co&pliance +ith the le/al reuisites for udicialinuir,$$: na&el2 >a? there &ust be an actual case orcontrovers callin/ for the exercise of udicial po+erF >b? theperson challen/in/ the act &ust have the standin/ to uestionthe validit of the subect act or issuanceF >c? the uestion ofconstitutionalit &ust be raised at the earliest opportunit F and>d? the issue of constitutionalit &ust be the ver lis &ota of thecase.$$; "f these reuisites, case la+ states that the first t+oare the &ost i&portant$$=and, therefore, shall be discussed

forth+ith.

A. Existence of an Actual Case or Controvers.

B constitutional fiat, udicial po+er operates onl +hen thereis an actual case or controvers.$'@ 0his is e&bodied in !ection$, Article of the $=;: Constitution +hich pertinentl statesthat #udicial po+er includes the dut of the courts of ustice tosettle actual controversies involvin/ ri/hts +hich are le/allde&andable and enforceable x x x.# %urisprudence providesthat an actual case or controvers is one +hich #involves aconflict of le/al ri/hts, an assertion of opposite le/al clai&s,susceptible of udicial resolution as distin/uished fro& ahpothetical or abstract difference or dispute.$'$ n other +ords,

#there &ust be a contrariet of le/al ri/hts that can beinterpreted and enforced on the basis of existin/ la+ and

urisprudence.#$'' Related to the reuire&ent of an actual caseor controvers is the reuire&ent of #ripeness,# &eanin/ thatthe uestions raised for constitutional scrutin are alread ripefor adudication. #A uestion is ripe for adudication +hen theact bein/ challen/ed has had a direct adverse effect on theindividual challen/in/ it. t is a prereuisite that so&ethin/ hadthen been acco&plished or perfor&ed b either branch beforea court &a co&e into the picture, and the petitioner &ustalle/e the existence of an i&&ediate or threatened inur to

7

































itself as a result of the challen/ed action.#$'4 #7ithal, courts +illdecline to pass upon constitutional issues throu/h advisoropinions, bereft as the are of authorit to resolve hpotheticalor &oot uestions.#$'6

Based on these principles, the Court finds that there exists anactual and usticiable controvers in these cases.

0he reuire&ent of contrariet of le/al ri/hts is clearl satisfiedb the anta/onistic positions of the parties on the

constitutionalit of the #Por( Barrel !ste&.# Also, theuestions in these consolidated cases are ripe for adudicationsince the challen/ed funds and the provisions allo+in/ for their utili8ation such as the '@$4 3AA for the PDA1, PD =$@ forthe Mala&paa 1unds and PD $;)=, as a&ended b PD $==4,for the Presidential !ocial 1und are currentl existin/ andoperationalF hence, there exists an i&&ediate or threatenedinur to petitioners as a result of the unconstitutional use ofthese public funds.

As for the PDA1, the Court &ust dispel the notion that theissues related thereto had been rendered &oot and acade&icb the refor&s underta(en b respondents. A case beco&es&oot +hen there is no &ore actual controvers bet+een the

parties or no useful purpose can be served in passin/ upon the&erits.$'* Differin/ fro& this description, the Court observesthat respondents proposed line-ite& bud/etin/ sche&e +ouldnot ter&inate the controvers nor di&inish the useful purposefor its resolution since said refor& is /eared to+ards the '@$6bud/et, and not the '@$4 PDA1 Article +hich, bein/ a distinctsubect &atter, re&ains le/all effective and existin/. Neither+ill the Presidents declaration that he had alread #abolishedthe PDA1# render the issues on PDA1 &oot precisel becausethe Executive branch of /overn&ent has no constitutionalauthorit to nullif or annul its le/al existence. B constitutionaldesi/n, the annul&ent or nullification of a la+ &a be doneeither b Con/ress, throu/h the passa/e of a repealin/ la+, orb the Court, throu/h a declaration of unconstitutionalit.nstructive on this point is the follo+in/ exchan/e bet+een

Associate %ustice Antonio 0. Carpio >%ustice Carpio? and the!olicitor 3eneral durin/ the "ral Ar/u&ents2$')

%ustice Carpio2 0he President has ta(en an oath to faithfullexecute the la+,$': correctO !olicitor 3eneral %ardele8a2 es,our 5onor.

%ustice Carpio2 And so the President cannot refuse toi&ple&ent the 3eneral Appropriations Act, correctO

!olicitor 3eneral %ardele8a2 7ell, that is our ans+er, our5onor. n the case, for exa&ple of the PDA1, the President hasa dut to execute the la+s but in the face of the outra/e overPDA1, the President +as sain/, # a& not sure that +ill

continue the release of the soft proects,# and that started, our 5onor. No+, +hether or not that Q >interrupted?

%ustice Carpio2 eah. +ill /rant the President if there areano&alies in the proect, he has the po+er to stop the releasesin the &eanti&e, to investi/ate, and that is !ection 4; ofChapter * of Boo( ) of the Revised Ad&inistrative Code$'; x xx. !o at &ost the President can suspend, no+ if the Presidentbelieves that the PDA1 is unconstitutional, can he ust refuseto i&ple&ent itO

!olicitor 3eneral %ardele8a2 No, our 5onor, as +e +ere trin/to sa in the specific case of the PDA1 because of the CoAReport, because of the reported irre/ularities and this Courtcan ta(e udicial notice, even outside, outside of the C"AReport, ou have the report of the +histle-blo+ers, thePresident +as ust exercisin/ precisel the dut Q.

x x x x

%ustice Carpio2 es, and that is correct. ouve seen the CoA

Report, there are ano&alies, ou stop and investi/ate, andprosecute, he has done that. But, does that &ean that PDA1has been repealedO

!olicitor 3eneral %ardele8a2 No, our 5onor x x x.

x x x x

%ustice Carpio2 !o that PDA1 can be le/all abolished onl int+o >'? cases. Con/ress passes a la+ to repeal it, or this Courtdeclares it unconstitutional, correctO

!olictor 3eneral %ardele8a2 es, our 5onor.

%ustice Carpio2 0he President has no po+er to le/all abolishPDA1. >E&phases supplied?

Even on the assu&ption of &ootness, urisprudence,nevertheless, dictates that #the &oot and acade&ic principle isnot a &a/ical for&ula that can auto&aticall dissuade theCourt in resolvin/ a case.# 0he Court +ill decide cases,other+ise &oot, if2 first, there is a /rave violation of theConstitutionF second, the exceptional character of the situationand the para&ount public interest is involvedF third, +hen theconstitutional issue raised reuires for&ulation of controllin/principles to /uide the bench, the bar, and the publicF andfourth, the case is capable of repetition et evadin/ revie+.$'=

0he applicabilit of the first exception is clear fro& thefunda&ental posture of petitioners the essentiall alle/e/rave violations of the Constitution +ith respect to, inter alia,the principles of separation of po+ers, non-dele/abilit ofle/islative po+er, chec(s and balances, accountabilit andlocal autono&.

0he applicabilit of the second exception is also apparent fro&the nature of the interests involved

the constitutionalit of the ver sste& +ithin +hichsi/nificant a&ounts of public funds have been and continue tobe utili8ed and expended undoubtedl presents a situation of

exceptional character as +ell as a &atter of para&ount publicinterest. 0he present petitions, in fact, have been lod/ed at ati&e +hen the sste&s fla+s have never before been&a/nified. 0o the Courts &ind, the coalescence of the CoAReport, the accounts of nu&erous +histle-blo+ers, and the/overn&ents o+n reco/nition that refor&s are needed #toaddress the reported abuses of the PDA1#$4@ de&onstrates apri&a facie pattern of abuse +hich onl underscores thei&portance of the &atter. t is also b this findin/ that the Courtfinds petitioners clai&s as not &erel theori8ed, speculative orhpothetical. "f note is the +ei/ht accorded b the Court to thefindin/s &ade b the CoA +hich is the constitutionall-

8























&andated audit ar& of the /overn&ent. n Delos !antos v.CoA,$4$ a recent case +herein the Court upheld the CoAsdisallo+ance of irre/ularl disbursed PDA1 funds, it +ase&phasi8ed that2

0he C"A is endo+ed +ith enou/h latitude to deter&ine,prevent, and disallo+ irre/ular, unnecessar, excessive,extrava/ant or unconscionable expenditures of /overn&entfunds. t is tas(ed to be vi/ilant and conscientious insafe/uardin/ the proper use of the /overn&ent9s, and

ulti&atel the people9s, propert. 0he exercise of its /eneralaudit po+er is a&on/ the constitutional &echanis&s that /iveslife to the chec( and balance sste& inherent in our for& of/overn&ent.

t is the /eneral polic of the Court to sustain the decisions ofad&inistrative authorities, especiall one +hich isconstitutionall-created, such as the CoA, not onl on the basisof the doctrine of separation of po+ers but also for theirpresu&ed expertise in the la+s the are entrusted to enforce.1indin/s of ad&inistrative a/encies are accorded not onlrespect but also finalit +hen the decision and order are nottainted +ith unfairness or arbitrariness that +ould a&ount to/rave abuse of discretion. t is onl +hen the CoA has acted+ithout or in excess of urisdiction, or +ith /rave abuse of

discretion a&ountin/ to lac( or excess of urisdiction, that thisCourt entertains a petition uestionin/ its rulin/s. x x x.>E&phases supplied?

0hus, if onl for the purpose of validatin/ the existence of anactual and usticiable controvers in these cases, the Courtdee&s the findin/s under the CoA Report to be sufficient.

0he Court also finds the third exception to be applicable lar/eldue to the practical need for a definitive rulin/ on the sste&sconstitutionalit. As disclosed durin/ the "ral Ar/u&ents, theCoA Chairperson esti&ates that thousands of notices ofdisallo+ances +ill be issued b her office in connection +iththe findin/s &ade in the CoA Report. n this relation, Associate

%ustice Marvic Mario ictor 1. <eonen >%ustice <eonen? pointedout that all of these +ould eventuall find their +a to thecourts.$4' Accordin/l, there is a co&pellin/ need to for&ulatecontrollin/ principles relative to the issues raised herein inorder to /uide the bench, the bar, and the public, not ust forthe expeditious resolution of the anticipated disallo+ancecases, but &ore i&portantl, so that the /overn&ent &a be/uided on ho+ public funds should be utili8ed in accordance+ith constitutional principles.

1inall, the application of the fourth exception is called for bthe reco/nition that the preparation and passa/e of thenational bud/et is, b constitutional i&pri&atur, an affair ofannual occurrence.$44 0he relevance of the issues before the

Court does not cease +ith the passa/e of a #PDA1 -freebud/et for '@$6.#$46 0he evolution of the #Por( Barrel !ste&,#b its &ultifarious iterations throu/hout the course of histor,lends a se&blance of truth to petitioners clai& that #the sa&edo/ +ill ust resurface +earin/ a different collar.#$4* n !anla(asv. Executive !ecretar,$4) the /overn&ent had alreadbac(trac(ed on a previous course of action et the Court usedthe #capable of repetition but evadin/ revie+# exception inorder #to prevent si&ilar uestions fro& re- e&er/in/.#$4: 0hesituation si&ilarl holds true to these cases. ndeed, the &riadof issues underlin/ the &anner in +hich certain public fundsare spent, if not resolved at this &ost opportune ti&e, are

capable of repetition and hence, &ust not evade udicialrevie+.

B. Matters of Polic2 the Political Luestion Doctrine.

0he #li&itation on the po+er of udicial revie+ to actual casesand controversies carries the assurance that #the courts +ill‖not intrude into areas co&&itted to the other branches of/overn&ent.#$4; Essentiall, the fore/oin/ li&itation is arestate&ent of the political uestion doctrine +hich, under the

classic for&ulation of Ba(er v. Carr,$4=

applies +hen there isfound, a&on/ others, #a textuall de&onstrable constitutionalco&&it&ent of the issue to a coordinate political depart&ent,##a lac( of udiciall discoverable and &ana/eable standards forresolvin/ it# or #the i&possibilit of decidin/ +ithout an initialpolic deter&ination of a (ind clearl for non- udicialdiscretion.# Cast a/ainst this li/ht, respondents sub&it that the#the political branches are in the best position not onl toperfor& bud/et-related refor&s but also to do the& inresponse to the specific de&ands of their constituents# and, assuch, #ur/e the Court not to i&pose a solution at this sta/e.#$6@

0he Court &ust den respondents sub&ission.

!uffice it to state that the issues raised before the Court do notpresent political but le/al uestions +hich are +ithin itsprovince to resolve. A political uestion refers to #thoseuestions +hich, under the Constitution, are to be decided bthe people in their soverei/n capacit, or in re/ard to +hich fulldiscretionar authorit has been dele/ated to the <e/islature oexecutive branch of the 3overn&ent. t is concerned +ithissues dependent upon the +isdo&, not le/alit, of a particular&easure.#$6$ 0he intrinsic constitutionalit of the #Por( Barrel!ste&# is not an issue dependent upon the +isdo& of thepolitical branches of /overn&ent but rather a le/al one +hichthe Constitution itself has co&&anded the Court to act upon.!crutini8in/ the contours of the sste& alon/ constitutionallines is a tas( that the political branches of /overn&ent areincapable of renderin/ precisel because it is an exercise of

udicial po+er. More i&portantl, the present Constitution hasnot onl vested the %udiciar the ri/ht to exercise udicial po+ebut essentiall &a(es it a dut to proceed there+ith. !ection $,

Article of the $=;: Constitution cannot be an clearer2 #0he udicial po+er shall be vested in one !upre&e Court and insuch lo+er courts as &a be established b la+. t includes thedut of the courts of ustice to settle actual controversiesinvolvin/ ri/hts +hich are le/all de&andable and enforceableand to deter&ine +hether or not there has been a /rave abuseof discretion a&ountin/ to lac( or excess of urisdiction on thepart of an branch or instru&entalit of the 3overn&ent.# nEstrada v. Desierto,$6' the expanded concept of udicial po+erunder the $=;: Constitution and its effect on the politicaluestion doctrine +as explained as follo+s2$64

0o a /reat de/ree, the $=;: Constitution has narro+ed thereach of the political uestion doctrine +hen it expanded thepo+er of udicial revie+ of this court not onl to settle actualcontroversies involvin/ ri/hts +hich are le/all de&andableand enforceable but also to deter&ine +hether or not there hasbeen a /rave abuse of discretion a&ountin/ to lac( or excessof urisdiction on the part of an branch or instru&entalit of/overn&ent. 5eretofore, the udiciar has focused on the #thoushalt not9s# of the Constitution directed a/ainst the exercise ofits urisdiction. 7ith the ne+ provision, ho+ever, courts are/iven a /reater prero/ative to deter&ine +hat it can do to

9



































prevent /rave abuse of discretion a&ountin/ to lac( or excessof urisdiction on the part of an branch or instru&entalit of/overn&ent. Clearl, the ne+ provision did not ust /rant theCourt po+er of doin/ nothin/. x x x >E&phases supplied?

t &ust also be borne in &ind that H +hen the udiciar&ediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does notassert an superiorit over the other depart&entsF does not inrealit nullif or invalidate an act of the le/islature or theexecutive, but onl asserts the sole&n and sacred obli/ation

assi/ned to it b the Constitution.#

$66

0o a /reat extent, theCourt is laudabl co/ni8ant of the refor&s underta(en b itsco-eual branches of /overn&ent. But it is b constitutionalforce that the Court &ust faithfull perfor& its dut. lti&atel, itis the Courts avo+ed intention that a resolution of these cases+ould not arrest or in an &anner i&pede the endeavors of thet+o other branches but, in fact, help ensure that the pillars ofchan/e are erected on fir& constitutional /rounds. After all, it isin the best interest of the people that each /reat branch of/overn&ent, +ithin its o+n sphere, contributes its shareto+ards achievin/ a holistic and /enuine solution to theproble&s of societ. 1or all these reasons, the Court cannotheed respondents plea for udicial restraint.

C. <ocus !tandi.

#0he /ist of the uestion of standin/ is +hether a part alle/essuch personal sta(e in the outco&e of the controvers as toassure that concrete adverseness +hich sharpens thepresentation of issues upon +hich the court depends forillu&ination of difficult constitutional uestions. nless a personis inuriousl affected in an of his constitutional ri/hts b theoperation of statute or ordinance, he has no standin/.#$6*

Petitioners have co&e before the Court in their respectivecapacities as citi8en-taxpaers and accordin/l, assert thatthe #dutifull contribute to the coffers of the National0reasur.#$6) Clearl, as taxpaers, the possess the reuisitestandin/ to uestion the validit of the existin/ #Por( Barrel

!ste&# under +hich the taxes the pa have been andcontinue to be utili8ed. t is undeniable that petitioners, astaxpaers, are bound to suffer fro& the unconstitutional usa/eof public funds, if the Court so rules. nvariabl, taxpaers havebeen allo+ed to sue +here there is a clai& that public fundsare ille/all disbursed or that public &one is bein/ deflectedto an i&proper purpose, or that public funds are +astedthrou/h the enforce&ent of an invalid or unconstitutionalla+,$6: as in these cases.

Moreover, as citi8ens, petitioners have euall fulfilled thestandin/ reuire&ent /iven that the issues the have raised&a be classified as &atters #of transcendental i&portance, ofoverreachin/ si/nificance to societ, or of para&ount public

interest.#$6;

0he CoA Chairpersons state&ent durin/ the "ral Ar/u&ents that the present controvers involves #not &erel asste&s failure# but a #co&plete brea(do+n ofcontrols#$6= a&plifies, in addition to the &atters above-discussed, the seriousness of the issues involved herein.ndeed, of /reater i&port than the da&a/e caused b theille/al expenditure of public funds is the &ortal +ound inflictedupon the funda&ental la+ b the enforce&ent of an invalidstatute.$*@ All told, petitioners have sufficient locus standi to filethe instant cases.

D. Res %udicata and !tare Decisis.

Res udicata >+hich &eans a #&atter adud/ed#? and staredecisis non uieta et &overe >or si&pl, stare decisis +hich&eans #follo+ past precedents and do not disturb +hat hasbeen settled#? are /eneral procedural la+ principles +hich bothdeal +ith the effects of previous but factuall si&ilardispositions to subseuent cases. 1or the cases at bar, theCourt exa&ines the applicabilit of these principles in relationto its prior rulin/s in Philconsa and <AMP.

0he focal point of res udicata is the ud/&ent. 0he principlestates that a ud/&ent on the &erits in a previous caserendered b a court of co&petent urisdiction +ould bind asubseuent case if, bet+een the first and second actions, thereexists an identit of parties, of subect &atter, and of causes ofaction.$*$ 0his reuired identit is not, ho+ever, attendanthereto since Philconsa and <AMP, respectivel involvedconstitutional challen/es a/ainst the $==6 CD1 Article and'@@6 PDA1 Article, +hereas the cases at bar call for a broaderconstitutional scrutin of the entire #Por( Barrel !ste&.# Also,the rulin/ in <AMP is essentiall a dis&issal based on aprocedural technicalit and, thus, hardl a ud/&ent on the&erits in that petitioners therein failed to present an#convincin/ proof x x x sho+in/ that, indeed, there +ere direct

releases of funds to the Me&bers of Con/ress, +ho actuallspend the& accordin/ to their sole discretion# or #pertinentevidentiar support to de&onstrate the ille/al &isuse of PDA1in the for& of (ic(bac(s and has beco&e a co&&on exerciseof unscrupulous Me&bers of Con/ress.# As such, the Court upheld, in vie+ of the presu&ption of constitutionalit accorded toever la+, the '@@6 PDA1 Article, and sa+ #no need to revie+or reverse the standin/ pronounce&ents in the said case.#5ence, for the fore/oin/ reasons, the res udicata principle,insofar as the Philconsa and <AMP cases are concerned,cannot appl.

"n the other hand, the focal point of stare decisis is thedoctrine created. 0he principle, entrenched under Article ;$*' of

the Civil Code, evo(es the /eneral rule that, for the sa(e ofcertaint, a conclusion reached in one case should bedoctrinall applied to those that follo+ if the facts aresubstantiall the sa&e, even thou/h the parties &a bedifferent. t proceeds fro& the first principle of ustice that,absent an po+erful countervailin/ considerations, li(e casesou/ht to be decided ali(e. 0hus, +here the sa&e uestionsrelatin/ to the sa&e event have been put for+ard b theparties si&ilarl situated as in a previous case liti/ated anddecided b a co&petent court, the rule of stare decisis is a barto an atte&pt to re-liti/ate the sa&e issue.$*4

Philconsa +as the first case +here a constitutional challen/ea/ainst a Por( Barrel provision, i.e., the $==6 CD1 Article, +asresolved b the Court. 0o properl understand its context,petitioners posturin/ +as that #the po+er /iven to theMe&bers of Con/ress to propose and identif proects andactivities to be funded b the CD1 is an encroach&ent b thele/islature on executive po+er, since said po+er in anappropriation act is in i&ple&entation of the la+# and that #theproposal and identification of the proects do not involve the&a(in/ of la+s or the repeal and a&end&ent thereof, the onlfunction /iven to the Con/ress b the Constitution.#$*6 ndeference to the fore/oin/ sub&issions, the Court reached thefollo+in/ &ain conclusions2 one, under the Constitution, thepo+er of appropriation, or the #po+er of the purse,# belon/s to

10

































Con/ressF t+o, the po+er of appropriation carries +ith it thepo+er to specif the proect or activit to be funded under theappropriation la+ and it can be detailed and as broad asCon/ress +ants it to beF and, three, the proposals andidentifications &ade b Me&bers of Con/ress are &erelreco&&endator. At once, it is apparent that the Philconsaresolution +as a li&ited response to a separation of po+ersproble&, specificall on the propriet of conferrin/ post-enact&ent identification authorit to Me&bers of Con/ress. "nthe contrar, the present cases call for a &ore holisticexa&ination of >a? the inter-relation bet+een the CD1 and

PDA1 Articles +ith each other, for&ative as the are of theentire #Por( Barrel !ste&# as +ell as >b? the intra-relation ofpost-enact&ent &easures contained +ithin a particular CD1 or PDA1 Article, includin/ not onl those related to the area ofproect identification but also to the areas of fund release andreali/n&ent. 0he co&plexit of the issues and the broaderle/al analses herein +arranted &a be, therefore, consideredas a po+erful countervailin/ reason a/ainst a +holesaleapplication of the stare decisis principle.

n addition, the Court observes that the Philconsa rulin/ +asactuall riddled +ith inherent constitutional inconsistencies+hich si&ilarl countervail a/ainst a full resort to stare decisis.

As &a be deduced fro& the &ain conclusions of the case,

Philconsas funda&ental pre&ise in allo+in/ Me&bers ofCon/ress to propose and identif of proects +ould be that thesaid identification authorit is but an aspect of the po+er ofappropriation +hich has been constitutionall lod/ed inCon/ress. 1ro& this pre&ise, the contradictions &a be easilseen. f the authorit to identif proects is an aspect ofappropriation and the po+er of appropriation is a for& ofle/islative po+er thereb lod/ed in Con/ress, then it follo+sthat2 >a? it is Con/ress +hich should exercise such authorit,and not its individual Me&bersF >b? such authorit &ust beexercised +ithin the prescribed procedure of la+ passa/e and,hence, should not be exercised after the 3AA has alreadbeen passedF and >c? such authorit, as e&bodied in the 3AA,has the force of la+ and, hence, cannot be &erelreco&&endator. %ustice itu/s Concurrin/ "pinion in the

sa&e case su&s up the Philconsa uandar in this +ise2#Neither +ould it be obectionable for Con/ress, b la+, toappropriate funds for such specific proects as it &a be&indedF to /ive that authorit, ho+ever, to the individual&e&bers of Con/ress in +hatever /uise, a& afraid, +ould beconstitutionall i&per&issible.# As the Court no+ lar/elbenefits fro& hindsi/ht and current findin/s on the &atter,a&on/ others, the CoA Report, the Court &ust partiallabandon its previous rulin/ in Philconsa insofar as it validatedthe post-enact&ent identification authorit of Me&bers ofCon/ress on the /uise that the sa&e +as &erelreco&&endator. 0his postulate raises serious constitutionalinconsistencies +hich cannot be si&pl excused on the /roundthat such &echanis& is #i&a/inative as it is innovative.#Moreover, it &ust be pointed out that the recent case of

Aba(ada 3uro Part <ist v. Purisi&a$**> Aba(ada? haseffectivel overturned Philconsas allo+ance of post-enact&entle/islator participation in vie+ of the separation of po+ersprinciple. 0hese constitutional inconsistencies and the

Aba(ada rule +ill be discussed in /reater detail in the ensuin/section of this Decision.

As for <AMP, suffice it to restate that the said case +asdis&issed on a procedural technicalit and, hence, has not setan controllin/ doctrine susceptible of current application to the

substantive issues in these cases. n fine, stare decisis +ouldnot appl.

. !ubstantive ssues.

A. Definition of 0er&s.

Before the Court proceeds to resolve the substantive issues ofthese cases, it &ust first define the ter&s #Por( Barrel!ste&,# #Con/ressional Por( Barrel,# and #Presidential Por(

Barrel# as the are essential to the ensuin/ discourse.

Petitioners define the ter& #Por( Barrel !ste&# as the#collusion bet+een the <e/islative and Executive branches of/overn&ent to accu&ulate lu&p-su& public funds in theiroffices +ith unchec(ed discretionar po+ers to deter&ine itsdistribution as political lar/esse.#$*) 0he assert that thefollo+in/ ele&ents &a(e up the Por( Barrel !ste&2 >a? lu&p-su& funds are allocated throu/h the appropriations process toan individual officerF >b? the officer is /iven sole and broaddiscretion in deter&inin/ ho+ the funds +ill be used orexpendedF >c? the /uidelines on ho+ to spend or use the fundsin the appropriation are either va/ue, overbroad or inexistentFand >d? proects funded are intended to benefit a definite

constituenc in a particular part of the countr and to help thepolitical careers of the disbursin/ official b ieldin/ richpatrona/e benefits.$*: 0he further state that the Por( Barrel!ste& is co&prised of t+o >'? (inds of discretionar publicfunds2 first, the Con/ressional >or <e/islative? Por( Barrel,currentl (no+n as the PDA1F$*; and, second, the Presidential>or Executive? Por( Barrel, specificall, the Mala&paa 1undsunder PD =$@ and the Presidential !ocial 1und under PD$;)=, as a&ended b PD $==4.$*=

Considerin/ petitioners sub&ission and in reference to its locaconcept and le/al histor, the Court defines the Por( Barrel!ste& as the collective bod of rules and practices that/overn the &anner b +hich lu&p-su&, discretionar funds,pri&aril intended for local proects, are utili8ed throu/h therespective participations of the <e/islative and Executivebranches of /overn&ent, includin/ its &e&bers. 0he Por(Barrel !ste& involves t+o >'? (inds of lu&p-su& discretionarfunds2

1irst, there is the Con/ressional Por( Barrel +hich is hereindefined as a (ind of lu&p-su&, discretionar fund +hereinle/islators, either individuall or collectivel or/ani8ed intoco&&ittees, are able to effectivel control certain aspects ofthe funds utili8ation throu/h various post-enact&ent &easuresandJor practices. n particular, petitioners consider the PDA1,as it appears under the '@$4 3AA, as Con/ressional Por(Barrel since it is, inter alia, a post-enact&ent &easure thatallo+s individual le/islators to +ield a collective po+erF$)@ and

!econd, there is the Presidential Por( Barrel +hich is hereindefined as a (ind of lu&p-su&, discretionar fund +hich allo+sthe President to deter&ine the &anner of its utili8ation. 1orreasons earlier stated,$)$ the Court shall deli&it the use of suchter& to refer onl to the Mala&paa 1unds and the Presidentia!ocial 1und.

7ith these definitions in &ind, the Court shall no+ proceed todiscuss the substantive issues of these cases.

11



















B. !ubstantive ssues on the Con/ressional Por( Barrel.

$. !eparation of Po+ers.

a. !tate&ent of Principle.

0he principle of separation of po+ers refers to theconstitutional de&arcation of the three funda&ental po+ers of/overn&ent. n the celebrated +ords of %ustice <aurel in

An/ara v. Electoral Co&&ission,$)' it &eans that the

#Constitution has bloc(ed out +ith deft stro(es and in boldlines, allot&ent of po+er to the executive, the le/islative andthe udicial depart&ents of the /overn&ent.#$)4 0o thele/islative branch of /overn&ent, throu/h Con/ress,$)6belon/sthe po+er to &a(e la+sF to the executive branch of/overn&ent, throu/h the President,$)* belon/s the po+er toenforce la+sF and to the udicial branch of /overn&ent, throu/hthe Court,$)) belon/s the po+er to interpret la+s. Because thethree /reat po+ers have been, b constitutional desi/n,ordained in this respect, #each depart&ent of the /overn&enthas exclusive co/ni8ance of &atters +ithin its urisdiction, andis supre&e +ithin its o+n sphere.#$): 0hus, #the le/islature hasno authorit to execute or construe the la+, the executive hasno authorit to &a(e or construe the la+, and the udiciar has

no po+er to &a(e or execute the la+.#

$);

0he principle ofseparation of po+ers and its concepts of autono& andindependence ste& fro& the notion that the po+ers of/overn&ent &ust be divided to avoid concentration of thesepo+ers in an one branchF the division, it is hoped, +ould avoidan sin/le branch fro& lordin/ its po+er over the otherbranches or the citi8enr.$)= 0o achieve this purpose, thedivided po+er &ust be +ielded b co-eual branches of/overn&ent that are euall capable of independent action inexercisin/ their respective &andates. <ac( of independence+ould result in the inabilit of one branch of /overn&ent tochec( the arbitrar or self-interest assertions of another orothers.$:@

Broadl spea(in/, there is a violation of the separation of

po+ers principle +hen one branch of /overn&ent undulencroaches on the do&ain of another. ! !upre&e Courtdecisions instruct that the principle of separation of po+ers&a be violated in t+o >'? +as2 firstl, #one branch &ainterfere i&per&issibl +ith the others perfor&ance of itsconstitutionall assi/ned function#F$:$ and #alternativel, thedoctrine &a be violated +hen one branch assu&es a functionthat &ore properl is entrusted to another.#$:' n other +ords,there is a violation of the principle +hen there is i&per&issible>a? interference +ith andJor >b? assu&ption of anotherdepart&ents functions.

0he enforce&ent of the national bud/et, as pri&aril containedin the 3AA, is indisputabl a function both constitutionall

assi/ned and properl entrusted to the Executive branch of/overn&ent. n 3uin/ona, %r. v. 5on. Cara/ue$:4 >3uin/ona,%r.?, the Court explained that the phase of bud/et execution#covers the various operational aspects of bud/etin/# andaccordin/l includes #the evaluation of +or( and financial plansfor individual activities,# the #re/ulation and release of funds#as +ell as all #other related activities# that co&prise the bud/etexecution ccle.$:6 0his is rooted in the principle that theallocation of po+er in the three principal branches of/overn&ent is a /rant of all po+ers inherent in the&.$:* 0hus,unless the Constitution provides other+ise, the Executivedepart&ent should exclusivel exercise all roles and

prero/atives +hich /o into the i&ple&entation of the nationalbud/et as provided under the 3AA as +ell as an otherappropriation la+.

n vie+ of the fore/oin/, the <e/islative branch of /overn&ent,&uch &ore an of its &e&bers, should not cross over the fieldof i&ple&entin/ the national bud/et since, as earlier stated,the sa&e is properl the do&ain of the Executive. A/ain, in3uin/ona, %r., the Court stated that #Con/ress enters thepicture +hen it deliberates or acts on the bud/et proposals of

the President. 0hereafter, Con/ress, #in the exercise of its o+n ud/&ent and +isdo&, for&ulates an appropriation actprecisel follo+in/ the process established b the Constitution,+hich specifies that no &one &a be paid fro& the 0reasurexcept in accordance +ith an appropriation &ade b la+.#pon approval and passa/e of the 3AA, Con/ress la+-&a(in/ role necessaril co&es to an end and fro& there theExecutives role of i&ple&entin/ the national bud/et be/ins.!o as not to blur the constitutional boundaries bet+een the&,Con/ress &ust #not concern it self +ith details fori&ple&entation b the Executive.#$:)

0he fore/oin/ cardinal postulates +ere definitivel enunciatedin Aba(ada +here the Court held that #fro& the &o&ent thela+ beco&es effective, an provision of la+ that e&po+ers

Con/ress or an of its &e&bers to pla an role in thei&ple&entation or enforce&ent of the la+ violates the principleof separation of po+ers and is thus unconstitutional.#$:: t &ustbe clarified, ho+ever, that since the restriction onl pertains to#an role in the i&ple&entation or enforce&ent of the la+,#Con/ress &a still exercise its oversi/ht function +hich is a&echanis& of chec(s and balances that the Constitution itselfallo+s. But it &ust be &ade clear that Con/ress role &ust beconfined to &ere oversi/ht. An post-enact&ent-&easureallo+in/ le/islator participation beond oversi/ht is bereft ofan constitutional basis and hence, tanta&ount toi&per&issible interference andJor assu&ption of executivefunctions. As the Court ruled in Aba(ada2$:;

An post-enact&ent con/ressional &easure x x x should beli&ited to scrutin and investi/ation.1âwphi1 n particular,con/ressional oversi/ht &ust be confined to the follo+in/2

>$? scrutin based pri&aril on Con/ress po+er ofappropriation and the bud/et hearin/s conducted inconnection +ith it, its po+er to as( heads ofdepart&ents to appear before and be heard b eitherof its 5ouses on an &atter pertainin/ to theirdepart&ents and its po+er of confir&ationF and

>'? investi/ation and &onitorin/ of the i&ple&entationof la+s pursuant to the po+er of Con/ress to conductinuiries in aid of le/islation.

An action or step beond that +ill under&ine the separation opo+ers /uaranteed b the Constitution. >E&phases supplied?

b. Application.

n these cases, petitioners sub&it that the Con/ressional Por(Barrel a&on/ others, the '@$4 PDA1 Article #+rec(s theassi/n&ent of responsibilities bet+een the political branches#as it is desi/ned to allo+ individual le/islators to interfere #+apast the ti&e it should have ceased# or, particularl, #after the

12
















































3AA is passed.#$:= 0he state that the findin/s andreco&&endations in the CoA Report provide #an illustration ofho+ absolute and definitive the po+er of le/islators +ield overproect i&ple&entation in co&plete violation of theconstitutional principle of separation of po+ers.#$;@ 1urther,the point out that the Court in the Philconsa case onl allo+edthe CD1 to exist on the condition that individual le/islatorsli&ited their role to reco&&endin/ proects and not if theactuall dictate their i&ple&entation.$;$

1or their part, respondents counter that the separations ofpo+ers principle has not been violated since the President&aintains #ulti&ate authorit to control the execution of the3AA and that he #retains the final discretion to reect# the‖le/islators proposals.$;' 0he &aintain that the Court, inPhilconsa, #upheld the constitutionalit of the po+er of&e&bers of Con/ress to propose and identif proects so lon/as such proposal and identification are reco&&endator.#$;4 Assuch, the clai& that #everthin/ in the !pecial Provisions ofthe '@$4 PDA1 Article follo+s the Philconsa fra&e+or(, andhence, re&ains constitutional.#$;6

0he Court rules in favor of petitioners.

As &a be observed fro& its le/al histor, the definin/ featureof all for&s of Con/ressional Por( Barrel +ould be theauthorit of le/islators to participate in the post-enact&entphases of proect i&ple&entation.

At its core, le/islators &a it be throu/h proect lists,$;* priorconsultations$;) or pro/ra& &enus$;: have been consistentlaccorded post-enact&ent authorit to identif the proects thedesire to be funded throu/h various Con/ressional Por( Barrelallocations. nder the '@$4 PDA1 Article, the statutorauthorit of le/islators to identif proects post-3AA &a beconstrued fro& the i&port of !pecial Provisions $ to 4 as +ellas the second para/raph of !pecial Provision 6. 0o elucidate,!pecial Provision $ e&bodies the pro/ra& &enu feature+hich, as evinced fro& past PDA1 Articles, allo+s individual

le/islators to identif PDA1 proects for as lon/ as theidentified proect falls under a /eneral pro/ra& listed in thesaid &enu. Relatedl, !pecial Provision ' provides that thei&ple&entin/ a/encies shall, +ithin =@ das fro& the 3AA ispassed, sub&it to Con/ress a &ore detailed priorit list,standard or desi/n prepared and sub&itted b i&ple&entin/a/encies fro& +hich the le/islator &a &a(e his choice. 0hesa&e provision further authori8es le/islators to identif PDA1proects outside his district for as lon/ as the representative ofthe district concerned concurs in +ritin/. Mean+hile, !pecialProvision 4 clarifies that PDA1 proects refer to #proects to beidentified b le/islators#$;; and thereunder provides theallocation li&it for the total a&ount of proects identified beach le/islator. 1inall, para/raph ' of !pecial Provision 6reuires that an &odification and revision of the proectidentification #shall be sub&itted to the 5ouse Co&&ittee on

Appropriations and the !enate Co&&ittee on 1inance forfavorable endorse&ent to the DBM or the i&ple&entin/a/enc, as the case &a be.# 1ro& the fore/oin/ specialprovisions, it cannot be seriousl doubted that le/islators havebeen accorded post-enact&ent authorit to identif PDA1proects.

Aside fro& the area of proect identification, le/islators havealso been accorded post-enact&ent authorit in the areas offund release and reali/n&ent. nder the '@$4 PDA1 Article,

the statutor authorit of le/islators to participate in the area offund release throu/h con/ressional co&&ittees is contained in!pecial Provision * +hich explicitl states that #all reuest forrelease of funds shall be supported b the docu&entsprescribed under !pecial Provision No. $ and favorablendorsed b 5ouse Co&&ittee on Appropriations and the!enate Co&&ittee on 1inance, as the case &a be#F +hiletheir statutor authorit to participate in the area of fundreali/n&ent is contained in2 first , para/raph ', !pecialProvision 6$;= +hich explicitl state s, a&on/ others, that #anreali/n&ent of funds shall be sub&itted to the 5ouse

Co&&ittee on Appropriations and the !enate Co&&ittee on1inance for favorable endorse&ent to the DBM or thei&ple&entin/ a/enc, as the case &a be F and, second ,‖para/raph $, also of !pecial Provision 6 +hich authori8es the#!ecretaries of A/riculture, Education, Ener/, nterior and<ocal 3overn&ent, <abor and E&plo&ent, Public 7or(s and5i/h+as, !ocial 7elfare and Develop&ent and 0rade andndustr$=@ x x x to approve reali/n&ent fro& one proectJscopeto another +ithin the allot&ent received fro& this 1und, subectto a&on/ others >iii? the reuest is +ith the concurrence of thele/islator concerned.#

Clearl, these post-enact&ent &easures +hich /overn theareas of proect identification, fund release and fund

reali/n&ent are not related to functions of con/ressionaloversi/ht and, hence, allo+ le/islators to intervene andJorassu&e duties that properl belon/ to the sphere of bud/etexecution. ndeed, b virtue of the fore/oin/, le/islators havebeen, in one for& or another, authori8ed to participate in as3uin/ona, %r. puts it #the various operational aspects ofbud/etin/,# includin/ #the evaluation of +or( and financialplans for individual activities# and the #re/ulation and releaseof funds# in violation of the separation of po+ers principle. 0hefunda&ental rule, as cate/oricall articulated in Aba(ada,cannot be overstated fro& the &o&ent the la+ beco&eseffective, an provision of la+ that e&po+ers Con/ress or anof its &e&bers to pla an role in the i&ple&entation orenforce&ent of the la+ violates the principle of separation ofpo+ers and is thus unconstitutional.$=$ 0hat the said authorit is

treated as &erel reco&&endator in nature does not alter itsunconstitutional tenor since the prohibition, to repeat, coversan role in the i&ple&entation or enforce&ent of the la+.0o+ards this end, the Court &ust therefore abandon its rulin/in Philconsa +hich sanctioned the conduct of le/islatoridentification on the /uise that the sa&e is &erelreco&&endator and, as such, respondents reliance on thesa&e falters alto/ether.

Besides, it &ust be pointed out that respondents havenonetheless failed to substantiate their position that theidentification authorit of le/islators is onl of reco&&endatori&port. Luite the contrar, respondents throu/h thestate&ents of the !olicitor 3eneral durin/ the "ral Ar/u&ents

have ad&itted that the identification of the le/islatorconstitutes a &andator reuire&ent before his PDA1 can betapped as a fundin/ source, thereb hi/hli/htin/ theindispensabilit of the said act to the entire bud/et executionprocess2$='

%ustice Bernabe2 No+, +ithout the individual le/islatorsidentification of the proect, can the PDA1 of the le/islator beutili8edO

!olicitor 3eneral %ardele8a2 No, our 5onor.

13






































%ustice Bernabe2 t cannotO

!olicitor 3eneral %ardele8a2 t cannotQ >interrupted?

%ustice Bernabe2 !o &eanin/ ou should have theidentification of the proect b the individual le/islatorO

!olicitor 3eneral %ardele8a2 es, our 5onor.

x x x x

%ustice Bernabe2 n short, the act of identification is&andatorO

!olictor 3eneral %ardele8a2 es, our 5onor. n the sense thatif it is not done and then there is no identification.

x x x x

%ustice Bernabe2 No+, +ould ou (no+ of specific instances+hen a proect +as i&ple&ented +ithout the identification bthe individual le/islatorO

!olicitor 3eneral %ardele8a2 do not (no+, our 5onorF do notthin( so but have no specific exa&ples. +ould doubt ver&uch, our 5onor, because to i&ple&ent, there is a need for a!AR" and the NCA. And the !AR" and the NCA are tri//eredb an identification fro& the le/islator.

x x x x

!olictor 3eneral %ardele8a2 7hat +e &ean b &andator, our 5onor, is +e +ere replin/ to a uestion, #5o+ can a le/islator&a(e sure that he is able to /et PDA1 1undsO# t is &andatorin the sense that he &ust identif, in that sense, our 5onor."ther+ise, if he does not identif, he cannot avail of the PDA1

1unds and his district +ould not be able to have PDA1 1unds,onl in that sense, our 5onor. >E&phases supplied?

0hus, for all the fore/oin/ reasons, the Court hereb declaresthe '@$4 PDA1 Article as +ell as all other provisions of la++hich si&ilarl allo+ le/islators to +ield an for& of post-enact&ent authorit in the i&ple&entation or enforce&ent ofthe bud/et, unrelated to con/ressional oversi/ht, as violative of the separation of po+ers principle and thus unconstitutional.Corollar thereto, infor&al practices, throu/h +hich le/islatorshave effectivel intruded into the proper phases of bud/etexecution, &ust be dee&ed as acts of /rave abuse ofdiscretion a&ountin/ to lac( or excess of urisdiction and,hence, accorded the sa&e unconstitutional treat&ent. 0hatsuch infor&al practices do exist and have, in fact, been

constantl observed throu/hout the ears has not beensubstantiall disputed here. As pointed out b Chief %usticeMaria <ourdes P.A. !ereno >Chief %ustice !ereno? durin/ the"ral Ar/u&ents of these cases2$=4

Chief %ustice !ereno2

No+, fro& the responses of the representative of both, theDBM and t+o >'? 5ouses of Con/ress, if +e enforces the initialthou/ht that have, after had seen the extent of this research&ade b & staff, that neither the Executive nor Con/ressfrontall faced the uestion of constitutional co&patibilit of

ho+ the +ere en/ineerin/ the bud/et process. n fact, the+ords ou have been usin/, as the three la+ers of the DBM,and both 5ouses of Con/ress has also been usin/ is surpriseFsurprised that all of these thin/s are no+ surfacin/. n fact, thou/ht that +hat the '@$4 PDA1 provisions did +as to codifin one section all the past practice that had been done since$==$. n a certain sense, +e should be than(ful that the areall no+ in the PDA1 !pecial Provisions. x x x >E&phasis andunderscorin/ supplied?

lti&atel, le/islators cannot exercise po+ers +hich the donot have, +hether throu/h for&al &easures +ritten into the la+or infor&al practices institutionali8ed in /overn&ent a/encies,else the Executive depart&ent be deprived of +hat theConstitution has vested as its o+n.

'. Non-dele/abilit of <e/islative Po+er.

a. !tate&ent of Principle.

As an adunct to the separation of po+ersprinciple,$=6 le/islative po+er shall be exclusivel exercised bthe bod to +hich the Constitution has conferred the sa&e. nparticular, !ection $, Article of the $=;: Constitution states

that such po+er shall be vested in the Con/ress of thePhilippines +hich shall consist of a !enate and a 5ouse ofRepresentatives, except to the extent reserved to the peopleb the provision on initiative and referendu&.$=* Based on thisprovision, it is clear that onl Con/ress, actin/ as a bica&eralbod, and the people, throu/h the process of initiative andreferendu&, &a constitutionall +ield le/islative po+er and noother. 0his pre&ise e&bodies the principle of non-dele/abilitof le/islative po+er, and the onl reco/ni8ed exceptionsthereto +ould be2 >a? dele/ated le/islative po+er to local/overn&ents +hich, b i&&e&orial practice, are allo+ed tole/islate on purel local &attersF$=) and >b? constitutionall-/rafted exceptions such as the authorit of the President to, bla+, exercise po+ers necessar and proper to carr out adeclared national polic in ti&es of +ar or other national

e&er/enc,$=:or fix +ithin specified li&its, and subect to suchli&itations and restrictions as Con/ress &a i&pose, tariffrates, i&port and export uotas, tonna/e and +harfa/e dues,and other duties or i&posts +ithin the fra&e+or( of thenational develop&ent pro/ra& of the 3overn&ent.$=;

Notabl, the principle of non-dele/abilit should not beconfused as a restriction to dele/ate rule-&a(in/ authorit toi&ple&entin/ a/encies for the li&ited purpose of either fillin/up the details of the la+ for its enforce&ent >supple&entarrule-&a(in/? or ascertainin/ facts to brin/ the la+ into actualoperation >contin/ent rule-&a(in/?.$==0he conceptual treat&entand li&itations of dele/ated rule-&a(in/ +ere explained in thecase of People v. Maceren'@@ as follo+s2

0he /rant of the rule-&a(in/ po+er to ad&inistrative a/enciesis a relaxation of the principle of separation of po+ers and is anexception to the nondele/ation of le/islative po+ers.

Ad&inistrative re/ulations or #subordinate le/islation#calculated to pro&ote the public interest are necessarbecause of #the /ro+in/ co&plexit of &odern life, the&ultiplication of the subects of /overn&ental re/ulations, andthe increased difficult of ad&inisterin/ the la+.#

x x x x

14























Nevertheless, it &ust be e&phasi8ed that the rule-&a(in/po+er &ust be confined to details for re/ulatin/ the &ode orproceedin/ to carr into effect the la+ as it has been enacted.0he po+er cannot be extended to a&endin/ or expandin/ thestatutor reuire&ents or to e&brace &atters not covered bthe statute. Rules that subvert the statute cannot besanctioned. >E&phases supplied?

b. Application.

n the cases at bar, the Court observes that the '@$4 PDA1 Article, insofar as it confers post-enact&ent identificationauthorit to individual le/islators, violates the principle of non-dele/abilit since said le/islators are effectivel allo+ed toindividuall exercise the po+er of appropriation, +hich assettled in Philconsa is lod/ed in Con/ress.'@$ 0hat the po+erto appropriate &ust be exercised onl throu/h le/islation isclear fro& !ection '=>$?, Article of the $=;: Constitution+hich states that2 #No &one shall be paid out of the 0reasurexcept in pursuance of an appropriation &ade b la+.# 0ounderstand +hat constitutes an act of appropriation, the Court,in Ben/8on v. !ecretar of %ustice and nsular

Auditor '@' >Ben/8on?, held that the po+er of appropriationinvolves >a? the settin/ apart b la+ of a certain su& fro& thepublic revenue for >b? a specified purpose. Essentiall, under

the '@$4 PDA1 Article, individual le/islators are /iven apersonal lu&p-su& fund fro& +hich the are able to dictate >a?ho+ &uch fro& such fund +ould /o to >b? a specific proect orbeneficiar that the the&selves also deter&ine. As these t+o>'? acts co&prise the exercise of the po+er of appropriation asdescribed in Ben/8on, and /iven that the '@$4 PDA1 Articleauthori8es individual le/islators to perfor& the sa&e,undoubtedl, said le/islators have been conferred the po+er tole/islate +hich the Constitution does not, ho+ever, allo+. 0hus,(eepin/ +ith the principle of non-dele/abilit of le/islativepo+er, the Court hereb declares the '@$4 PDA1 Article, as+ell as all other for&s of Con/ressional Por( Barrel +hichcontain the si&ilar le/islative identification feature as hereindiscussed, as unconstitutional.

4. Chec(s and Balances.

a. !tate&ent of PrincipleF te&-eto Po+er.

0he fact that the three /reat po+ers of /overn&ent areintended to be (ept separate and distinct does not &ean thatthe are absolutel unrestrained and independent of eachother. 0he Constitution has also provided for an elaboratesste& of chec(s and balances to secure coordination in the+or(in/s of the various depart&ents of the /overn&ent.'@4

A pri&e exa&ple of a constitutional chec( and balance +ouldbe the Presidents po+er to veto an ite& +ritten into an

appropriation, revenue or tariff bill sub&itted to hi& bCon/ress for approval throu/h a process (no+n as #billpresent&ent.# 0he Presidents ite&-veto po+er is found in!ection ':>'?, Article of the $=;: Constitution +hich readsas follo+s2

!ec. ':. x x x.

x x x x

>'? 0he President shall have the po+er to veto an particularite& or ite&s in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but theveto shall not affect the ite& or ite&s to +hich he does notobect.

0he present&ent of appropriation, revenue or tariff bills to thePresident, +herein he &a exercise his po+er of ite&-veto,for&s part of the #sin/le, finel +rou/ht and exhaustivelconsidered, procedures# for la+-passa/e as specified underthe Constitution.'@6 As stated in Aba(ada, the final step in the

la+-&a(in/ process is the #sub&ission of the bill to thePresident for approval. "nce approved, it ta(es effect as la+after the reuired publication.#'@*

Elaboratin/ on the Presidents ite&-veto po+er and itsrelevance as a chec( on the le/islature, the Court, in Ben/8on,explained that2'@)

0he for&er "r/anic Act and the present Constitution of thePhilippines &a(e the Chief Executive an inte/ral part of thela+-&a(in/ po+er. 5is disapproval of a bill, co&&onl (no+nas a veto, is essentiall a le/islative act. 0he uestionspresented to the &ind of the Chief Executive are precisel thesa&e as those the le/islature &ust deter&ine in passin/ a bill,

except that his +ill be a broader point of vie+.

0he Constitution is a li&itation upon the po+er of the le/islativedepart&ent of the /overn&ent, but in this respect it is a /rantof po+er to the executive depart&ent. 0he <e/islature has theaffir&ative po+er to enact la+sF the Chief Executive has thene/ative po+er b the constitutional exercise of +hich he &adefeat the +ill of the <e/islature. t follo+s that the ChiefExecutive &ust find his authorit in the Constitution. But inexercisin/ that authorit he &a not be confined to rules ofstrict construction or ha&pered b the un+ise interference ofthe udiciar. 0he courts +ill indul/e ever intend&ent in favorof the constitutionalit of a veto in the sa&e &anner as the+ill presu&e the constitutionalit of an act as ori/inall passedb the <e/islature. >E&phases supplied?

0he ustification for the Presidents ite&-veto po+er rests on avariet of polic /oals such as to prevent lo/-rollin/le/islation,'@: i&pose fiscal restrictions on the le/islature, as+ell as to fortif the executive branchs role in the bud/etarprocess.'@; n &&i/ration and Naturali8ation !ervice v.Chadha, the ! !upre&e Court characteri8ed the Presidentsite&-po+er as #a salutar chec( upon the le/islative bod,calculated to /uard the co&&unit a/ainst the effects offactions, precipitanc, or of an i&pulse unfriendl to the public/ood, +hich &a happen to influence a &aorit of that bod#Fphrased differentl, it is &eant to #increase the chances infavor of the co&&unit a/ainst the passin/ of bad la+s,throu/h haste, inadvertence, or desi/n.#'@=

1or the President to exercise his ite&-veto po+er, itnecessaril follo+s that there exists a proper #ite&# +hich &abe the obect of the veto. An ite&, as defined in the field ofappropriations, pertains to #the particulars, the details, thedistinct and severable parts of the appropriation or of the bill.#n the case of Ben/8on v. !ecretar of %ustice of the Philippineslands,'$@ the ! !upre&e Court characteri8ed an ite& ofappropriation as follo+s2

15






























An ite& of an appropriation bill obviousl &eans an ite& +hich,in itself, is a specific appropriation of &one, not so&e /eneralprovision of la+ +hich happens to be put into an appropriationbill. >E&phases supplied?

"n this pre&ise, it &a be concluded that an appropriation bill,to ensure that the President &a be able to exercise his po+erof ite& veto, &ust contain #specific appropriations of &one#and not onl #/eneral provisions# +hich provide for para&etersof appropriation.

1urther, it is si/nificant to point out that an ite& of appropriation&ust be an ite& characteri8ed b sin/ular correspondence &eanin/ an allocation of a specified sin/ular a&ount for aspecified sin/ular purpose, other+ise (no+n as a #line-ite&.#'$$ 0his treat&ent not onl allo+s the ite& to beconsistent +ith its definition as a #specific appropriation of&one# but also ensures that the President &a discerniblveto the sa&e. Based on the fore/oin/ for&ulation, theexistin/ Cala&it 1und, Contin/ent 1und and the ntelli/ence1und, bein/ appropriations +hich state a specified a&ount fora specific purpose, +ould then be considered as #line- ite&#appropriations +hich are ri/htfull subect to ite& veto.<i(e+ise, it &ust be observed that an appropriation &a bevalidl apportioned into co&ponent percenta/es or valuesF

ho+ever, it is crucial that each percenta/e or value &ust beallocated for its o+n correspondin/ purpose for suchco&ponent to be considered as a proper line-ite&. Moreover,as %ustice Carpio correctl pointed out, a valid appropriation&a even have several related purposes that are baccountin/ and bud/etin/ practice considered as one purpose,e./., M""E >&aintenance and other operatin/ expenses?, in+hich case the related purposes shall be dee&ed sufficientlspecific for the exercise of the Presidents ite& veto po+er.1inall, special purpose funds and discretionar funds +ouldeuall suare +ith the constitutional &echanis& of ite&-vetofor as lon/ as the follo+ the rule on sin/ular correspondenceas herein discussed. Anent special purpose funds, it &ust beadded that !ection '*>6?, Article of the $=;: Constitutionreuires that the #special appropriations bill shall specif thepurpose for +hich it is intended, and shall be supported bfunds actuall available as certified b the National 0reasurer,or t o be raised b a correspondin/ revenue proposal therein.#Mean+hile, +ith respect to discretionar funds, !ection ' *>)?,

Article of the $=;: Constitution reuires that said funds#shall be disbursed onl for public purposes to be supported bappropriate vouchers and subect to such /uidelines as &a beprescribed b la+.#

n contrast, +hat bec(ons constitutional infir&it areappropriations +hich &erel provide for a sin/ular lu&p-su&a&ount to be tapped as a source of fundin/ for &ultiplepurposes. !ince such appropriation tpe necessitates thefurther deter&ination of both the actual a&ount to be expended

and the actual purpose of the appropriation +hich &ust still bechosen fro& the &ultiple purposes stated in the la+, it cannotbe said that the appropriation la+ alread indicates a #specificappropriation of &one and hence, +ithout a proper line-ite&‖+hich the President &a veto. As a practical result, thePresident +ould then be faced +ith the predica&ent of eithervetoin/ the entire appropriation if he finds so&e of its purposes+asteful or undesirable, or approvin/ the entire appropriationso as not to hinder so&e of its le/iti&ate purposes. 1inall, it&a not be a&iss to state that such arran/e&ent also raisesnon-dele/abilit issues considerin/ that the i&ple&entin/authorit +ould still have to deter&ine, a/ain, both the actual

a&ount to be expended and the actual purpose of theappropriation. !ince the fore/oin/ deter&inations constitutethe inte/ral aspects of the po+er to appropriate, thei&ple&entin/ authorit +ould, in effect, be exercisin/le/islative prero/atives in violation of the principle of non-dele/abilit.

b. Application.

n these cases, petitioners clai& that #in the current x x x

sste& +here the PDA1 is a lu&p-su& appropriation, thele/islators identification of the proects after the passa/e of the3AA denies the President the chance to veto that ite& lateron.#'$' Accordin/l, the sub&it that the #ite& veto po+er of thePresident &andates that appropriations bills adopt line-ite&bud/etin/# and that #Con/ress cannot choose a &ode ofbud/etin/ +hich effectivel renders the constitutionall-/ivenpo+er of the President useless.#'$4

"n the other hand, respondents &aintain that the text of theConstitution envisions a process +hich is intended to &eet thede&ands of a &oderni8in/ econo& and, as such, lu&p-su&appropriations are essential to financiall address situations+hich are barel foreseen +hen a 3AA is enacted. 0he ar/ue

that the decision of the Con/ress to create so&e lu&p-su&appropriations is constitutionall allo+ed and textuall-/rounded.'$6

0he Court a/rees +ith petitioners.

nder the '@$4 PDA1 Article, the a&ount of P'6.:= Billiononl appears as a collective allocation li&it since the saida&ount +ould be further divided a&on/ individual le/islators+ho +ould then receive personal lu&p-su& allocations andcould, after the 3AA is passed, effectivel appropriate PDA1funds based on their o+n discretion. As these inter&ediateappropriations are &ade b le/islators onl after the 3AA ispassed and hence, outside of the la+, it necessaril &eansthat the actual ite&s of PDA1 appropriation +ould not havebeen +ritten into the 3eneral Appropriations Bill and thuseffectuated +ithout veto consideration. 0his (ind of lu&p-su&Jpost-enact&ent le/islative identification bud/etin/ sste&fosters the creation of a bud/et +ithin a bud/et# +hichsubverts the prescribed procedure of present&ent andconseuentl i&pairs the Presidents po+er of ite& veto. Aspetitioners aptl point out, the above-described sste& forcesthe President to decide bet+een >a? acceptin/ theentire P'6.:= Billion PDA1 allocation +ithout (no+in/ thespecific proects of the le/islators, +hich &a or &a not beconsistent +ith his national a/enda and >b? reectin/ the +holePDA1 to the detri&ent of all other le/islators +ith le/iti&ateproects.'$*

Moreover, even +ithout its post-enact&ent le/islativeidentification feature, the '@$4 PDA1 Article +ould re&ainconstitutionall fla+ed since it +ould then operate as aprohibited for& of lu&p-su& appropriation above-characteri8ed. n particular, the lu&p-su& a&ount of P'6.:=Billion +ould be treated as a &ere fundin/ source allotted for&ultiple purposes of spendin/, i.e., scholarships, &edical&issions, assistance to indi/ents, preservation of historical&aterials, construction of roads, flood control, etc. 0his setupconnotes that the appropriation la+ leaves the actual a&ountsand purposes of the appropriation for further deter&ination

16















and, therefore, does not readil indicate a discernible ite&+hich &a be subect to the Presidents po+er of ite& veto.

n fact, on the accountabilit side, the sa&e lu&p-su&bud/etin/ sche&e has, as the CoA Chairperson relas, #li&itedstate auditors fro& obtainin/ relevant data and infor&ation that+ould aid in &ore strin/entl auditin/ the utili8ation of said1unds.#'$) Accordin/l, she reco&&ends the adoption of a #lineb line bud/et or a&ount per proposed pro/ra&, activit orproect, and per i&ple&entin/ a/enc.#'$:

5ence, in vie+ of the reasons above-stated, the Court finds the'@$4 PDA1 Article, as +ell as all Con/ressional Por( Barrel<a+s of si&ilar operation, to be unconstitutional. 0hat suchbud/etin/ sste& provides for a /reater de/ree of flexibilit toaccount for future contin/encies cannot be an excuse to defeat+hat the Constitution reuires. Clearl, the first and essentialtruth of the &atter is that unconstitutional &eans do not ustifeven co&&endable ends.'$;

c. Accountabilit.

Petitioners further relate that the sste& under +hich variousfor&s of Con/ressional Por( Barrel operate defies public

accountabilit as it renders Con/ress incapable of chec(in/itself or its Me&bers. n particular, the point out that theCon/ressional Por( Barrel #/ives each le/islator a direct,financial interest in the s&ooth, speed passin/ of the earlbud/et# +hich turns the& #fro& fiscali8ers# into #financiall-interested partners.#'$= 0he also clai& that the sste& has aneffect on re- election as #the PDA1 excels in self-perpetuationof elective officials.# 1inall, the add that the #PDA1 i&pairsthe po+er of i&peach&ent# as such #funds are indeed uiteuseful, to +ell, accelerate the decisions of senators.#''@

0he Court a/rees in part.

0he aphoris& for/ed under !ection $, Article S of the $=;:

Constitution, +hich states that #public office is a public trust,# isan overarchin/ re&inder that ever instru&entalit of/overn&ent should exercise their official functions onl inaccordance +ith the principles of the Constitution +hiche&bodies the para&eters of the peoples trust. 0he notion of apublic trust connotes accountabilit,''$ hence, the various&echanis&s in the Constitution +hich are desi/ned to exactaccountabilit fro& public officers.

A&on/ others, an accountabilit &echanis& +ith +hich theproper expenditure of public funds &a be chec(ed is thepo+er of con/ressional oversi/ht. As &entioned in

Aba(ada,''' con/ressional oversi/ht &a be perfor&ed eitherthrou/h2 >a? scrutin based pri&aril on Con/ress po+er ofappropriation and the bud/et hearin/s conducted in connection+ith it, its po+er to as( heads of depart&ents to appear beforeand be heard b either of its 5ouses on an &atter pertainin/to their depart&ents and its po+er of confir&ationF''4 or >b?investi/ation and &onitorin/ of the i&ple&entation of la+spursuant to the po+er of Con/ress to conduct inuiries in aidof le/islation.''6

0he Court a/rees +ith petitioners that certain featurese&bedded in so&e for&s of Con/ressional Por( Barrel, a&on/others the '@$4 PDA1 Article, has an effect on con/ressionaloversi/ht. 0he fact that individual le/islators are /iven post-

enact&ent roles in the i&ple&entation of the bud/et &a(es itdifficult for the& to beco&e disinterested #observers# +henscrutini8in/, investi/atin/ or &onitorin/ the i&ple&entation ofthe appropriation la+. 0o a certain extent, the conduct ofoversi/ht +ould be tainted as said le/islators, +ho are vested+ith post-enact&ent authorit, +ould, in effect, be chec(in/ onactivities in +hich the the&selves participate. Also, it &ust bepointed out that this ver sa&e concept of post-enact&entauthori8ation runs afoul of !ection $6, Article of the $=;:Constitution +hich provides that2

!ec. $6. No !enator or Me&ber of the 5ouse ofRepresentatives &a personall appear as counsel before ancourt of ustice or before the Electoral 0ribunals, or uasi-

udicial and other ad&inistrative bodies. Neither shall he,directl or indirectl, be interested financiall in an contract+ith, or in an franchise or special privile/e /ranted b the3overn&ent, or an subdivision, a/enc, or instru&entalitthereof, includin/ an /overn&ent-o+ned or controlledcorporation, or its subsidiar, durin/ his ter& of office. 5e shallnot intervene in an &atter before an office of the3overn&ent for his pecuniar benefit or +here he &a becalled upon to act on account of his office. >E&phasis supplied

Clearl, allo+in/ le/islators to intervene in the various phases

of proect i&ple&entation a &atter before another office of/overn&ent renders the& susceptible to ta(in/ undueadvanta/e of their o+n office.

0he Court, ho+ever, cannot co&pletel a/ree that the sa&epost-enact&ent authorit andJor the individual le/islatorscontrol of his PDA1 per se +ould allo+ hi& to perpetuatehi&self in office. ndeed, +hile the Con/ressional Por( Barreland a le/islators use thereof &a be lin(ed to this area ofinterest, the use of his PDA1 for re-election purposes is a&atter +hich &ust be anal8ed based on particular facts andon a case-to-case basis.

1inall, +hile the Court accounts for the possibilit that the

close operational proxi&it bet+een le/islators and theExecutive depart&ent, throu/h the for&ers post-enact&entparticipation, &a affect the process of i&peach&ent, this&atter lar/el borders on the do&ain of politics and does notstrictl concern the Por( Barrel !ste&s intrinsicconstitutionalit. As such, it is an i&proper subect of udicialassess&ent.

n su&, insofar as its post-enact&ent features dilutecon/ressional oversi/ht and violate !ection $6, Article of the$=;: Constitution, thus i&pairin/ public accountabilit, the'@$4 PDA1 Article and other for&s of Con/ressional Por(Barrel of si&ilar nature are dee&ed as unconstitutional.

6. Political Dnasties.

"ne of the petitioners sub&its that the Por( Barrel !ste&enables politicians +ho are &e&bers of political dnasties toaccu&ulate funds to perpetuate the&selves in po+er, incontravention of !ection '), Article of the $=;:Constitution''* +hich states that2

!ec. '). 0he !tate shall /uarantee eual access toopportunities for public service, and prohibit political dnasties

17






























as &a be defined b la+. >E&phasis and underscorin/supplied?

At the outset, suffice it to state that the fore/oin/ provision isconsidered as not self-executin/ due to the ualifin/ phrase#as &a be defined b la+.# n this respect, said provision doesnot, b and of itself, provide a udiciall enforceableconstitutional ri/ht but &erel specifies /uideline for le/islativeor executive action.'') 0herefore, since there appears to be nostandin/ la+ +hich crstalli8es the polic on political dnasties

for enforce&ent, the Court &ust defer fro& rulin/ on this issue.

n an event, the Court finds the above-stated ar/u&ent on thisscore to be lar/el speculative since it has not been properlde&onstrated ho+ the Por( Barrel !ste& +ould be able topropa/ate political dnasties.

*. <ocal Autono&.

0he !tates polic on local autono& is principall stated in!ection '*, Article and !ections ' and 4, Article S of the$=;: Constitution +hich read as follo+s2

AR0C<E

!ec. '*. 0he !tate shall ensure the autono& of local/overn&ents.

AR0C<E S

!ec. '. 0he territorial and political subdivisions shall eno localautono&.

!ec. 4. 0he Con/ress shall enact a local /overn&ent code+hich shall provide for a &ore responsive and accountablelocal /overn&ent structure instituted throu/h a sste& ofdecentrali8ation +ith effective &echanis&s of recall, initiative,

and referendu&, allocate a&on/ the different local /overn&entunits their po+ers, responsibilities, and resources, and providefor the ualifications, election, appoint&ent and re&oval, ter&,salaries, po+ers and functions and duties of local officials, andall other &atters relatin/ to the or/ani8ation and operation ofthe local units.

Pursuant thereto, Con/ress enacted RA :$)@,'': other+ise(no+n as the #<ocal 3overn&ent Code of $==$# ><3C?,+herein the polic on local autono& had been &orespecificall explicated as follo+s2

!ec. '. Declaration of Polic. >a? t is hereb declared thepolic of the !tate that the territorial and political subdivisions

of the !tate shall eno /enuine and &eanin/ful localautono& to enable the& to attain their fullest develop&ent asself-reliant co&&unities and &a(e the& &ore effectivepartners in the attain&ent of national /oals. 0o+ard this end,the !tate shall provide for a &ore responsive and accountablelocal /overn&ent structure instituted throu/h a sste& ofdecentrali8ation +hereb local /overn&ent units shall be /iven&ore po+ers, authorit, responsibilities, and resources. 0heprocess of decentrali8ation shall proceed fro& the National3overn&ent to the local /overn&ent units.

x x x x

>c? t is li(e+ise the polic of the !tate to reuire all nationala/encies and offices to conduct periodic consultations +ithappropriate local /overn&ent units, non/overn&ental andpeoples or/ani8ations, and other concerned sectors of theco&&unit before an proect or pro/ra& is i&ple&ented intheir respective urisdictions. >E&phases and underscorin/supplied?

0he above-uoted provisions of the Constitution and the <3Creveal the polic of the !tate to e&po+er local /overn&entunits ><3s? to develop and ulti&atel, beco&e self-sustainin/and effective contributors to the national econo&. Asexplained b the Court in Philippine 3a&efo+l Co&&ission v.nter&ediate Appellate Court2'';

0his is as /ood an occasion as an to stress the co&&it&entof the Constitution to the polic of local autono& +hich isintended to provide the needed i&petus and encoura/e&ent tothe develop&ent of our local political subdivisions as #self -reliant co&&unities.# n the +ords of %efferson, #Municipalcorporations are the s&all republics fro& +hich the /reat onederives its stren/th.# 0he vitali8ation of local /overn&ents +ill

enable their inhabitants to full exploit their resources and&ore i&portant, i&bue the& +ith a deepened sense ofinvolve&ent in public affairs as &e&bers of the bod politic.0his obective could be blunted b undue interference b thenational /overn&ent in purel local affairs +hich are bestresolved b the officials and inhabitants of such political units.0he decision +e reach toda confor&s not onl to the letter ofthe pertinent la+s but also to the spirit of theConstitution.''= >E&phases and underscorin/ supplied?

n the cases at bar, petitioners contend that the Con/ressionalPor( Barrel /oes a/ainst the constitutional principles on localautono& since it allo+s district representatives, +ho arenational officers, to substitute their ud/&ents in utili8in/ publicfunds for local develop&ent.'4@ 0he Court a/rees +ith

petitioners.

Philconsa described the $==6 CD1 as an atte&pt #to &a(eeual the uneual# and that #it is also a reco/nition thatindividual &e&bers of Con/ress, far &ore than the Presidentand their con/ressional collea/ues, are li(el to be(no+led/eable about the needs of their respective constituentsand the priorit to be /iven each proect.#'4$ Dra+in/ stren/thfro& this pronounce&ent, previous le/islators ustified itsexistence b statin/ that #the relativel s&all proectsi&ple&ented under the Con/ressional Por( Barrel co&ple&entand lin( the national develop&ent /oals to the countrside and/rassroots as +ell as to depressed areas +hich are overloo(edb central a/encies +hich are preoccupied +ith &e/a-

proects.'4'

!i&ilarl, in his Au/ust '4, '@$4 speech on the#abolition# of PDA1 and bud/etar refor&s, President Auino&entioned that the Con/ressional Por( Barrel +as ori/inallestablished for a +orth /oal, +hich is to enable therepresentatives to identif proects for co&&unities that the<3 concerned cannot afford.'44

Not+ithstandin/ these declarations, the Court, ho+ever, findsan inherent defect in the sste& +hich actuall belies theavo+ed intention of #&a(in/ eual the uneual.# n particular,the Court observes that the /au/e of PDA1 and CD1

18
























allocationJdivision is based solel on the fact of office, +ithoutta(in/ into account the specific interests and peculiarities of thedistrict the le/islator represents. n this re/ard, theallocationJdivision li&its are clearl not based on /enuinepara&eters of eualit, +herein econo&ic or /eo/raphicindicators have been ta(en into consideration. As a result, adistrict representative of a hi/hl-urbani8ed &etropolis /ets thesa&e a&ount of fundin/ as a district representative of a far-flun/ rural province +hich +ould be relativel#underdeveloped# co&pared to the for&er. 0o add, +hat rouses/raver scrutin is that even !enators and Part-<ist

Representatives and in so&e ears, even the ice-President +ho do not represent an localit, receive fundin/ fro& theCon/ressional Por( Barrel as +ell. 0hese certainl areanathe&a to the Con/ressional Por( Barrels ori/inal intent+hich is #to &a(e eual the uneual.# lti&atel, the PDA1and CD1 had beco&e personal funds under the effectivecontrol of each le/islator and /iven unto the& on the soleaccount of their office.

0he Court also observes that this concept of le/islator controlunderlin/ the CD1 and PDA1 conflicts +ith the functions ofthe various <ocal Develop&ent Councils ><DCs? +hich arealread le/all &andated to #assist the correspondin/san//unian in settin/ the direction of econo&ic and social

develop&ent, and coordinatin/ develop&ent efforts +ithin itsterritorial urisdiction.#'46 Considerin/ that <DCs areinstru&entalities +hose functions are essentiall /earedto+ards &ana/in/ local affairs,'4* their pro/ra&s, policies andresolutions should not be overridden nor duplicated bindividual le/islators, +ho are national officers that have nola+-&a(in/ authorit except onl +hen actin/ as a bod. 0heunder&inin/ effect on local autono& caused b the post-enact&ent authorit conferred to the latter +as succinctl putb petitioners in the follo+in/ +ise2'4)

7ith PDA1, a Con/ress&an can si&pl bpass the localdevelop&ent council and initiate proects on his o+n, and eventa(e sole credit for its execution. ndeed, this tpe ofpersonalit-driven proect identification has not onl contributedlittle to the overall develop&ent of the district, but has evencontributed to #further +ea(enin/ infrastructure plannin/ andcoordination efforts of the /overn&ent.#

0hus, insofar as individual le/islators are authori8ed tointervene in purel local &atters and thereb subvert /enuinelocal autono&, the '@$4 PDA1 Article as +ell as all othersi&ilar for&s of Con/ressional Por( Barrel is dee&edunconstitutional.

7ith this final issue on the Con/ressional Por( Barrel resolved,the Court no+ turns to the substantive issues involvin/ thePresidential Por( Barrel.

C. !ubstantive ssues on the Presidential Por( Barrel.

$. alidit of Appropriation.

Petitioners preli&inaril assail !ection ; of PD =$@ and !ection$' of PD$;)= >no+, a&ended b PD $==4?, +hich respectivelprovide for the Mala&paa 1unds and the Presidential !ocial1und, as invalid appropriations la+s since the do not have the#pri&ar and specific# purpose of authori8in/ the release ofpublic funds fro& the National 0reasur. Petitioners sub&it that

!ection ; of PD =$@ is not an appropriation la+ since the#pri&ar and specific purpose of PD =$@ is the creation of an‖Ener/ Develop&ent Board and !ection ; thereof onl createda !pecial 1und incidental thereto.'4: n si&ilar re/ard,petitioners ar/ue that !ection $' of PD $;)= is neither a validappropriations la+ since the allocation of the Presidential!ocial 1und is &erel incidental to the #pri&ar and specific#purpose of PD $;)= +hich is the a&end&ent of the 1ranchiseand Po+ers of PA3C"R.'4; n vie+ of the fore/oin/, petitionerssuppose that such funds are bein/ used +ithout an valid la+allo+in/ for their proper appropriation in violation of !ection

'=>$?, Article of the $=;: Constitution +hich states that2 #No&one shall be paid out of the 0reasur except in pursuance ofan appropriation &ade b la+.#'4=

0he Court disa/rees.

#An appropriation &ade b la+ under the conte&plation of‖!ection '=>$?, Article of the $=;: Constitution exists +hen aprovision of la+ >a? sets apart a deter&inate ordeter&inable'6@ a&ount of &one and >b? allocates the sa&efor a particular public purpose. 0hese t+o &ini&u&desi/nations of a&ount and purpose ste& fro& the verdefinition of the +ord #appropriation,# +hich &eans #to allot,assi/n, set apart or appl to a particular use or purpose,# and

hence, if +ritten into the la+, de&onstrate that the le/islativeintent to appropriate exists. As the Constitution #does notprovide or prescribe an particular for& of +ords or reli/iousrecitals in +hich an authori8ation or appropriation b Con/ressshall be &ade, except that it be &ade b la+,# anappropriation la+ &a accordin/ to Philconsa be #detailedand as broad as Con/ress +ants it to be# for as lon/ as theintent to appropriate &a be /leaned fro& the sa&e. As held inthe case of 3uin/ona, %r.2'6$

0here is no provision in our Constitution that provides orprescribes an particular for& of +ords or reli/ious recitals in+hich an authori8ation or appropriation b Con/ress shall be&ade, except that it be #&ade b la+,# such as precisel the

authori8ation or appropriation under the uestionedpresidential decrees. n other +ords, in ter&s of ti&e hori8ons,an appropriation &a be &ade i&pliedl >as b past butsubsistin/ le/islations? as +ell as expressl for the currentfiscal ear >as b enact&ent of la+s b the present Con/ress?,

ust as said appropriation &a be &ade in /eneral as +ell as inspecific ter&s. 0he Con/ressional authori8ation &a bee&bodied in annual la+s, such as a /eneral appropriations actor in special provisions of la+s of /eneral or special application+hich appropriate public funds for specific public purposes,such as the uestioned decrees. An appropriation &easure issufficient if the le/islative intention clearl and certainlappears fro& the lan/ua/e e&ploed >n re Continuin/

Appropriations, 4' P. ':'?, +hether in the past or in thepresent. >E&phases and underscorin/ supplied?

<i(e+ise, as ruled b the ! !upre&e Court in !tate ofNevada v. <a 3rave2'6'

0o constitute an appropriation there &ust be &one placed in afund applicable to the desi/nated purpose. 0he +ordappropriate &eans to allot, assi/n, set apart or appl to aparticular use or purpose. An appropriation in the sense of theconstitution &eans the settin/ apart a portion of the publicfunds for a public purpose. No particular for& of +ords is

19


























necessar for the purpose, if the intention to appropriate isplainl &anifested. >E&phases supplied?

0hus, based on the fore/oin/, the Court cannot sustain thear/u&ent that the appropriation &ust be the #pri&ar andspecific# purpose of the la+ in order for a valid appropriationla+ to exist. 0o reiterate, if a le/al provision desi/nates adeter&inate or deter&inable a&ount of &one and allocatesthe sa&e for a particular public purpose, then the le/islativeintent to appropriate beco&es apparent and, hence, alread

sufficient to satisf the reuire&ent of an #appropriation &adeb la+# under conte&plation of the Constitution.

!ection ; of PD =$@ pertinentl provides2

!ection ;. Appropriations. x x x

All fees, revenues and receipts of the Board fro& an and allsources includin/ receipts fro& service contracts anda/ree&ents such as application and processin/ fees, si/naturebonus, discover bonus, production bonusF all &one collectedfro& concessionaires, representin/ unspent +or( obli/ations,fines and penalties under the Petroleu& Act of $=6=F as +ell asthe /overn&ent share representin/ roalties, rentals,

production share on service contracts and si&ilar pa&ents onthe exploration, develop&ent and exploitation of ener/resources, shall for& part of a !pecial 1und to be used tofinance ener/ resource develop&ent and exploitationpro/ra&s and proects of the /overn&ent and for such otherpurposes as &a be hereafter directed b the President.>E&phases supplied?

7hereas !ection $' of PD $;)=, as a&ended b PD $==4,reads2

!ec. $'. !pecial Condition of 1ranchise. T After deductin/ five>*? percent as 1ranchise 0ax, the 1ift >*@? percent shareof the 3overn&ent in the a//re/ate /ross earnin/s of the

Corporation fro& this 1ranchise, or )@ if the a//re/ate /rossearnin/s be less than P$*@,@@@,@@@.@@ shall be set aside andshall accrue to the 3eneral 1und to finance the prioritinfrastructure develop&ent proects and to finance therestoration of da&a/ed or destroed facilities due tocala&ities, as &a be directed and authori8ed b the "ffice ofthe President of the Philippines. >E&phases supplied?

Anal8in/ the le/al text vis-U-vis the above-&entionedprinciples, it &a then be concluded that >a? !ection ; of PD=$@, +hich creates a !pecial 1und co&prised of #all fees,revenues, and receipts of the Ener/ Develop&ent Board fro&an and all sources# >a deter&inable a&ount? #to be used tofinance ener/ resource develop&ent and exploitationpro/ra&s and proects of the /overn&ent and for such otherpurposes as &a be hereafter directed b the President# >aspecified public purpose?, and >b? !ection $' of PD $;)=, asa&ended b PD $==4, +hich si&ilarl sets aside, #afterdeductin/ five >*? percent as 1ranchise 0ax, the 1ift >*@?percent share of the 3overn&ent in the a//re/ate /rossearnin/s of PA3C"R, or )@, if the a//re/ate /ross earnin/sbe less than P$*@,@@@,@@@.@@# >also a deter&inable a&ount?#to finance the priorit infrastructure develop&ent proects andx x x the restoration of da&a/ed or destroed facilities due tocala&ities, as &a be directed and authori8ed b the "ffice ofthe President of the Philippines# >also a specified public

purpose?, are le/al appropriations under !ection '=>$?, Article of the $=;: Constitution.

n this relation, it is apropos to note that the '@$4 PDA1 Articlecannot be properl dee&ed as a le/al appropriation under thesaid constitutional provision precisel because, as earlierstated, it contains post-enact&ent &easures +hich effectivelcreate a sste& of inter&ediate appropriations. 0heseinter&ediate appropriations are the actual appropriations&eant for enforce&ent and since the are &ade b individual

le/islators after the 3AA is passed, the occur outside the la+. As such, the Court observes that the real appropriation &adeunder the '@$4 PDA1 Article is not the P'6.:= Billion allocatedfor the entire PDA1, but rather the post-enact&entdeter&inations &ade b the individual le/islators +hich are, torepeat, occurrences outside of the la+. rrefra/abl, the '@$4PDA1 Article does not constitute an #appropriation &ade bla+# since it, in its truest sense, onl authori8es individualle/islators to appropriate in violation of the non-dele/abilitprinciple as afore-discussed.

'. ndue Dele/ation.

"n a related &atter, petitioners contend that !ection ; of PD

=$@ constitutes an undue dele/ation of le/islative po+er sincethe phrase #and for such other purposes as &a be hereafterdirected b the President# /ives the President #unbridleddiscretion to deter&ine for +hat purpose the funds +ill beused.#'64 Respondents, on the other hand, ur/ed the Court toappl the principle of eusde& /eneris to the sa&e section andthus, construe the phrase #and for such other purposes as &abe hereafter directed b the President# to refer onl to otherpurposes related #to ener/ resource develop&ent andexploitation pro/ra&s and proects of the /overn&ent.#'66

0he Court a/rees +ith petitioners sub&issions.

7hile the desi/nation of a deter&inate or deter&inable a&ounfor a particular public purpose is sufficient for a le/alappropriation to exist, the appropriation la+ &ust containadeuate le/islative /uidelines if the sa&e la+ dele/ates rule-&a(in/ authorit to the Executive'6* either for the purpose of>a? fillin/ up the details of the la+ for its enforce&ent, (no+n assupple&entar rule-&a(in/, or >b? ascertainin/ facts to brin/the la+ into actual operation, referred to as contin/ent rule-&a(in/.'6) 0here are t+o >'? funda&ental tests to ensure thatthe le/islative /uidelines for dele/ated rule-&a(in/ are indeedadeuate. 0he first test is called the #co&pleteness test.# Casela+ states that a la+ is co&plete +hen it sets forth therein thepolic to be executed, carried out, or i&ple&ented b thedele/ate. "n the other hand, the second test is called the#sufficient standard test.# %urisprudence holds that a la+ lasdo+n a sufficient standard +hen it provides adeuate

/uidelines or li&itations in the la+ to &ap out the boundaries ofthe dele/ates authorit and prevent the dele/ation fro&runnin/ riot.'6: 0o be sufficient, the standard &ust specif theli&its of the dele/ates authorit, announce the le/islativepolic, and identif the conditions under +hich it is to bei&ple&ented.'6;

n vie+ of the fore/oin/, the Court a/rees +ith petitioners thatthe phrase #and for such other purposes as &a be hereafterdirected b the President# under !ection ; of PD =$@constitutes an undue dele/ation of le/islative po+er insofar as

20




















it does not la do+n a sufficient standard to adeuateldeter&ine the li&its of the Presidents authorit +ith respect tothe purpose for +hich the Mala&paa 1unds &a be used. Asit reads, the said phrase /ives the President +ide latitude touse the Mala&paa 1unds for an other purpose he &a directand, in effect, allo+s hi& to unilaterall appropriate publicfunds beond the purvie+ of the la+. 0hat the subect phrase&a be confined onl to #ener/ resource develop&ent andexploitation pro/ra&s and proects of the /overn&ent# underthe principle of eusde& /eneris, &eanin/ that the /eneral+ord or phrase is to be construed to include or be restricted

to thin/s a(in to, rese&blin/, or of the sa&e (ind or class asthose specificall &entioned,'6= is belied b three >4? reasons2first, the phrase #ener/ resource develop&ent andexploitation pro/ra&s and proects of the /overn&ent# states asin/ular and /eneral class and hence, cannot be treated as astatutor reference of specific thin/s fro& +hich the /eneralphrase #for such other purposes# &a be li&itedF second, thesaid phrase also exhausts the class it represents, na&elener/ develop&ent pro/ra&s of the /overn&entF'*@ and, third,the Executive depart&ent has, in fact, used the Mala&paa1unds for non-ener/ related purposes under the subectphrase, thereb contradictin/ respondents o+n position that itis li&ited onl to #ener/ resource develop&ent andexploitation pro/ra&s and proects of the/overn&ent.#'*$ 0hus, +hile !ection ; of PD =$@ &a havepassed the co&pleteness test since the polic of ener/develop&ent is clearl deducible fro& its text, the phrase #andfor such other purposes as &a be hereafter directed b thePresident# under the sa&e provision of la+ should nonethelessbe stric(en do+n as unconstitutional as it lies independentlunfettered b an sufficient standard of the dele/atin/ la+. 0hisnot+ithstandin/, it &ust be underscored that the rest of !ection;, insofar as it allo+s for the use of the Mala&paa 1unds #tofinance ener/ resource develop&ent and exploitationpro/ra&s and proects of the /overn&ent,# re&ains le/alleffective and subsistin/. 0ruth be told, the declaredunconstitutionalit of the afore&entioned phrase is but anassurance that the Mala&paa 1unds +ould be used as itshould be used onl in accordance +ith the avo+ed purpose

and intention of PD =$@.

As for the Presidential !ocial 1und, the Court ta(es udicialnotice of the fact that !ection $' of PD $;)= has alread beena&ended b PD $==4 +hich thus &oots the partiessub&issions on the sa&e.'*' Nevertheless, since thea&endator provision &a be readil exa&ined under thecurrent para&eters of discussion, the Court proceeds toresolve its constitutionalit.

Pri&aril, !ection $' of PD $;)=, as a&ended b PD $==4,indicates that the Presidential !ocial 1und &a be used #tofirst, finance the priorit infrastructure develop&ent proectsand second, to finance the restoration of da&a/ed or

destroed facilities due to cala&ities, as &a be directed andauthori8ed b the "ffice of the President of the Philippines.#0he Court finds that +hile the second indicated purposeadeuatel curtails the authorit of the President to spend thePresidential !ocial 1und onl for restoration purposes +hicharise fro& cala&ities, the first indicated purpose, ho+ever,/ives hi& carte blanche authorit to use the sa&e fund for aninfrastructure proect he &a so deter&ine as a #priorit#.eril, the la+ does not suppl a definition of #priorit infrastructure develop&ent proects# and hence, leaves thePresident +ithout an /uideline to construe the sa&e. 0o note,the deli&itation of a proect as one of #infrastructure# is too

broad of a classification since the said ter& could pertain toan (ind of facilit. 0his &a be deduced fro& its lexico/raphicdefinition as follo+s2 #the underlin/ fra&e+or( of a sste&,especiall public services and facilities >such as hi/h+as,schools, brid/es, se+ers, and +ater-sste&s? needed tosupport co&&erce as +ell as econo&ic and residentialdevelop&ent.#'*4 n fine, the phrase #to finance the prioritinfrastructure develop&ent proects# &ust be stric(en do+n asunconstitutional since si&ilar to the above-assailed provisionunder !ection ; of PD =$@ it lies independentl unfettered ban sufficient standard of the dele/atin/ la+. As the are

severable, all other provisions of !ection $' of PD $;)=, asa&ended b PD $==4, re&ains le/all effective and subsistin/

D. Ancillar Praers. $.

Petitioners Praer to be 1urnished <ists and Detailed Reports.

Aside fro& see(in/ the Court to declare the Por( Barrel!ste& unconstitutional as the Court did so in the context ofits pronounce&ents &ade in this Decision petitioners euallpra that the Executive !ecretar andJor the DBM be orderedto release to the CoA and to the public2 >a? #the co&pletescheduleJlist of le/islators +ho have availed of their PDA1 and

<P fro& the ears '@@4 to '@$4, specifin/ the use of thefunds, the proect or activit and the recipient entities orindividuals, and all pertinent data thereto# >PDA1 se!cheduleJ<ist?F'*6 and >b? #the use of the Executives lu&p-su&, discretionar funds, includin/ the proceeds fro& the x x xMala&paa 1unds and re&ittances fro& the PA3C"R x x xfro& '@@4 to '@$4, specifin/ the x x x proect or activit andthe recipient entities or individuals, and all pertinent datathereto#'** >Presidential Por( se Report?. Petitioners praer is/rounded on !ection ';, Article and !ection :, Article ofthe $=;: Constitution +hich read as follo+s2

AR0C<E

!ec. ';. !ubect to reasonable conditions prescribed b la+,the !tate adopts and i&ple&ents a polic of full publicdisclosure of all its transactions involvin/ public interest.

AR0C<E !ec. :.

0he ri/ht of the people to infor&ation on &atters of publicconcern shall be reco/ni8ed. Access to official records, and todocu&ents and papers pertainin/ to official acts, transactions,or decisions, as +ell as to /overn&ent research data used asbasis for polic develop&ent, shall be afforded the citi8en,subect to such li&itations as &a be provided b la+.

0he Court denies petitioners sub&ission.

Case la+ instructs that the proper re&ed to invo(e the ri/ht toinfor&ation is to file a petition for &anda&us. As explained inthe case of <e/aspi v. Civil !ervice Co&&ission2'*)

7hile the &anner of exa&inin/ public records &a be subectto reasonable re/ulation b the /overn&ent a/enc in custodthereof, the dut to disclose the infor&ation of public concern,and to afford access to public records cannot be discretionaron the part of said a/encies. Certainl, its perfor&ance cannotbe &ade contin/ent upon the discretion of such a/encies.

21























"ther+ise, the eno&ent of the constitutional ri/ht &a berendered nu/ator b an +hi&sical exercise of a/encdiscretion. 0he constitutional dut, not bein/ discretionar, itsperfor&ance &a be co&pelled b a +rit of &anda&us in aproper case.

But +hat is a proper case for Manda&us to issueO n the casebefore s, the public ri/ht to be enforced and the conco&itantdut of the !tate are uneuivocabl set forth in theConstitution.

0he decisive uestion on the propriet of the issuance of the+rit of &anda&us in this case is, +hether the infor&ationsou/ht b the petitioner is +ithin the a&bit of the constitutional/uarantee. >E&phases supplied?

Corollaril, in the case of al&onte v. Bel&onte%r .'*: >al&onte?, it has been clarified that the ri/ht toinfor&ation does not include the ri/ht to co&pel thepreparation of #lists, abstracts, su&&aries and the li(e.# n thesa&e case, it +as stressed that it is essential that the#applicant has a +ell -defined, clear and certain le/al ri/ht tothe thin/ de&anded and that it is the i&perative dut ofdefendant to perfor& the act reuired.# 5ence, +ithout the

fore/oin/ substantiations, the Court cannot /rant a particularreuest for infor&ation. 0he pertinent portions of al&onte arehereunder uoted2'*;

Althou/h citi8ens are afforded the ri/ht to infor&ation and,pursuant thereto, are entitled to #access to official records,# theConstitution does not accord the& a ri/ht to co&pel custodiansof official records to prepare lists, abstracts, su&&aries andthe li(e in their desire to acuire infor&ation on &atters ofpublic concern.

t &ust be stressed that it is essential for a +rit of &anda&us toissue that the applicant has a +ell-defined, clear and certainle/al ri/ht to the thin/ de&anded and that it is the i&perativedut of defendant to perfor& the act reuired. 0hecorrespondin/ dut of the respondent to perfor& the reuiredact &ust be clear and specific <e&i v. alencia, 3.R. No. <-'@:);, Nove&ber '=,$=);,$') !CRA '@4F "ca&po v. !ubido,3.R. No. <-';466, Au/ust ':, $=:), :' !CRA 664.

0he reuest of the petitioners fails to &eet this standard, therebein/ no dut on the part of respondent to prepare the listreuested. >E&phases supplied?

n these cases, aside fro& the fact that none of the petitionsare in the nature of &anda&us actions, the Court finds thatpetitioners have failed to establish a #a +ell-defined, clear andcertain le/al ri/ht# to be furnished b the Executive !ecretarandJor the DBM of their reuested PDA1 se !cheduleJ<istand Presidential Por( se Report. Neither did petitionersassert an la+ or ad&inistrative issuance +hich +ould for& thebases of the latters dut to furnish the& +ith the docu&entsreuested. 7hile petitioners pra that said infor&ation beeuall released to the CoA, it &ust be pointed out that theCoA has not been i&pleaded as a part to these cases nor hasit filed an petition before the Court to be allo+ed access to orto co&pel the release of an official docu&ent relevant to theconduct of its audit investi/ations. 7hile the Court reco/ni8esthat the infor&ation reuested is a &atter of si/nificant publicconcern, ho+ever, if onl to ensure that the para&eters of

disclosure are properl foisted and so as not to undul ha&perthe euall i&portant interests of the /overn&ent, it isconstrained to den petitioners praer on this score, +ithoutpreudice to a proper &anda&us case +hich the, or even theCoA, &a choose to pursue throu/h a separate petition.

t bears clarification that the Courts denial herein should onlcover petitioners plea to be furnished +ith such scheduleJlistand report and not in an +a den the&, or the /eneralpublic, access to official docu&ents +hich are alread existin/

and of public record. !ubect to reasonable re/ulation andabsent an valid statutor prohibition, access to thesedocu&ents should not be proscribed. 0hus, in al&onte, +hilethe Court denied the application for &anda&us to+ards thepreparation of the list reuested b petitioners therein, itnonetheless allo+ed access to the docu&ents sou/ht for bthe latter, subect, ho+ever, to the custodians reasonablere/ulations,vi8.2'*=

n fine, petitioners are entitled to access to the docu&entsevidencin/ loans /ranted b the 3!!, subect to reasonablere/ulations that the latter &a pro&ul/ate relatin/ to the&anner and hours of exa&ination, to the end that da&a/e toor loss of the records &a be avoided, that undue interference+ith the duties of the custodian of the records &a be

prevented and that the ri/ht of other persons entitled to inspectthe records &a be insured <e/aspi v. Civil !erviceCo&&ission, supra at p. *4;, uotin/ !ubido v. "8aeta, ;@Phil. 4;4, 4;:. 0he petition, as to the second and thirdalternative acts sou/ht to be done b petitioners, is&eritorious.

5o+ever, the sa&e cannot be said +ith re/ard to the first actsou/ht b petitioners, i.e.,

#to furnish petitioners the list of the na&es of the Batasan/Pa&bansa &e&bers belon/in/ to the ND" and PDP-<aban+ho +ere able to secure clean loans i&&ediatel before the1ebruar : election thru the intercessionJ&ar/inal note of the

then 1irst <ad &elda Marcos.#

0he Court, therefore, applies the sa&e treat&ent here.

'. Petitioners Praer to nclude Matters in Con/ressionalDeliberations.

Petitioners further see( that the Court #order the inclusion inbud/etar deliberations +ith the Con/ress of all presentl, off-bud/et, lu&p su&, discretionar funds includin/ but not li&itedto, proceeds fro& the x x x Mala&paa 1und, re&ittances fro&the PA3C"R and the PC!" or the Executives !ocial1unds.#')@

!uffice it to state that the above-stated relief sou/ht bpetitioners covers a &atter +hich is /enerall left to theprero/ative of the political branches of /overn&ent. 5ence,lest the Court itself overreach, it &ust euall den their praeron this score.

4. Respondents Praer to <ift 0R"F Conseuential Effects ofDecision.

22















0he final issue to be resolved ste&s fro& the interpretationaccorded b the DBM to the concept of released funds. nresponse to the Courts !epte&ber $@, '@$4 0R" thatenoined the release of the re&ainin/ PDA1 allocated for theear '@$4, the DBM issued Circular <etter No. '@$4-; dated!epte&ber ':, '@$4 >DBM Circular '@$4-;? +hich pertinentlreads as follo+s2

4.@ Nonetheless, PDA1 proects funded under the 1 '@$43AA, +here a !pecial Allot&ent Release "rder >!AR"? has

been issued b the DBM and such !AR" has been obli/atedb the i&ple&entin/ a/encies prior to the issuance of the 0R",&a continuall be i&ple&ented and disburse&ents theretoeffected b the a/encies concerned.

Based on the text of the fore/oin/, the DBM authori8ed thecontinued i&ple&entation and disburse&ent of PDA1 funds aslon/ as the are2 first, covered b a !AR"F and, second, thatsaid !AR" had been obli/ated b the i&ple&entin/ a/encconcerned prior to the issuance of the Courts !epte&ber $@,'@$4 0R".

Petitioners ta(e issue +ith the fore/oin/ circular, ar/uin/ that#the issuance of the !AR" does not et involve the release of

funds under the PDA1, as release is onl tri//ered b theissuance of a Notice of Cash Allocation >NCA?V.#')$ As such,PDA1 disburse&ents, even if covered b an obli/ated !AR",should re&ain enoined.

1or their part, respondents espouse that the subect 0R" onlcovers #unreleased and unobli/ated allot&ents.# 0he explainthat once a !AR" has been issued and obli/ated b thei&ple&entin/ a/enc concerned, the PDA1 funds covered bthe sa&e are alread #beond the reach of the 0R" becausethe cannot be considered as re&ainin/ PDA1.# 0heconclude that this is a reasonable interpretation of the 0R" bthe DBM.')'

0he Court a/rees +ith petitioners in part.

At the outset, it &ust be observed that the issue of +hether ornot the Courts !epte&ber $@, '@$4 0R" should be lifted is a&atter rendered &oot b the present Decision. 0heunconstitutionalit of the '@$4 PDA1 Article as declared hereinhas the conseuential effect of convertin/ the te&porarinunction into a per&anent one. 5ence, fro& the pro&ul/ationof this Decision, the release of the re&ainin/ PDA1 funds for'@$4, a&on/ others, is no+ per&anentl enoined.

0he propriet of the DBMs interpretation of the concept of#release# &ust, nevertheless, be resolved as it has a practicali&pact on the execution of the current Decision. n particular,the Court &ust resolve the issue of +hether or not PDA1 fundscovered b obli/ated !AR"s, at the ti&e this Decision ispro&ul/ated, &a still be disbursed follo+in/ the DBMsinterpretation in DBM Circular '@$4-;.

"n this score, the Court a/rees +ith petitioners posturin/ forthe funda&ental reason that funds covered b an obli/ated!AR" are et to be #released# under le/al conte&plation. A!AR", as defined b the DBM itself in its +ebsite, is #aspecificauthorit issued to identified a/encies to incur obli/ations notexceedin/ a /iven a&ount durin/ a specified period for thepurpose indicated. t shall cover expenditures the release of

+hich is subect to co&pliance +ith specific la+s orre/ulations, or is subect to separate approval or clearance bco&petent authorit.#')4

Based on this definition, it &a be /leaned that a !AR" onlevinces the existence of an obli/ation and not the directive topa. Practicall spea(in/, the !AR" does not have the directand i&&ediate effect of placin/ public funds beond the controof the disbursin/ authorit. n fact, a !AR" &a even be+ithdra+n under certain circu&stances +hich +ill prevent the

actual release of funds. "n the other hand, the actual releaseof funds is brou/ht about b the issuance of the NCA,')6 +hichis subseuent to the issuance of a !AR". As &a bedeter&ined fro& the state&ents of the DBM representativedurin/ the "ral Ar/u&ents2')*

%ustice Bernabe2 s the notice of allocation issuedsi&ultaneousl +ith the !AR"O

x x x x

Att. Rui82 t co&es after. 0he !AR", our 5onor, is onl the/o si/nal for the a/encies to obli/ate or to enter intoco&&it&ents. 0he NCA, our 5onor, is alread the /o si/nal

to the treasur for us to be able to pa or to liuidate thea&ounts obli/ated in the !AR"F so it co&es after. x x x 0heNCA, our 5onor, is the /o si/nal for the MD! for theauthori8ed /overn&ent-disbursin/ ban(s to, therefore, pa thepaees dependin/ on the proects or proects covered b the!AR" and the NCA.

%ustice Bernabe2 Are there instances that !AR"s arecancelled or revo(edO

Att. Rui82 our 5onor, +ould li(e to instead sub&it that thereare instances that the !AR"s issued are +ithdra+n b theDBM.

%ustice Bernabe2 0he are +ithdra+nO

Att. Rui82 es, our 5onor x x x. >E&phases and underscorin/supplied?

0hus, unless an NCA has been issued, public funds should notbe treated as funds +hich have been #released.# n thisrespect, therefore, the disburse&ent of '@$4 PDA1 funds+hich are onl covered b obli/ated !AR"s, and +ithout ancorrespondin/ NCAs issued, &ust, at the ti&e of thisDecisions pro&ul/ation, be enoined and conseuentlreverted to the unappropriated surplus of the /eneral fund.eril, in vie+ of the declared unconstitutionalit of the '@$4PDA1 Article, the funds appropriated pursuant thereto cannot

be disbursed even thou/h alread obli/ated, else the Courtsanctions the dealin/ of funds co&in/ fro& an unconstitutionalsource.

0his sa&e pronounce&ent &ust be euall applied to >a? theMala&paa 1unds +hich have been obli/ated but not released

&eanin/, those &erel covered b a !AR" under thephrase #and for such other purposes as &a be hereafterdirected b the President# pursuant to !ection ; of PD =$@Fand >b? funds sourced fro& the Presidential !ocial 1und underthe phrase #to finance the priorit infrastructure develop&ent

23
















proects# pursuant to !ection $' of PD $;)=, as a&ended bPD $==4, +hich +ere alto/ether declared b the Court asunconstitutional. 5o+ever, these funds should not be revertedto the /eneral fund as afore-stated but instead, respectivelre&ain under the Mala&paa 1unds and the Presidential!ocial 1und to be utili8ed for their correspondin/ specialpurposes not other+ise declared as unconstitutional.

E. Conseuential Effects of Decision.

As a final point, it &ust be stressed that the Courtspronounce&ent anent the unconstitutionalit of >a? the '@$4PDA1 Article and its !pecial Provisions, >b? all otherCon/ressional Por( Barrel provisions si&ilar thereto, and >c?the phrases >$? #and for such other purposes as &a behereafter directed b the President# under !ection ; of PD =$@,and >'? #to finance the priorit infrastructure develop&entproects# under !ection $' of PD $;)=, as a&ended b PD$==4, &ust onl be treated as prospective in effect in vie+ ofthe operative fact doctrine.

0o explain, the operative fact doctrine exhorts the reco/nitionthat until the udiciar, in an appropriate case, declares theinvalidit of a certain le/islative or executive act, such act is

presu&ed constitutional and thus, entitled to obedience andrespect and should be properl enforced and co&plied +ith. Asexplained in the recent case of Co&&issioner of nternalRevenue v. !an Roue Po+er Corporation,')) the doctrine&erel #reflects a+areness that precisel because the udiciaris the /overn&ental or/an +hich has the final sa on +hetheror not a le/islative or executive &easure is valid, a period ofti&e &a have elapsed before it can exercise the po+er of

udicial revie+ that &a lead to a declaration of nullit. t +ouldbe to deprive the la+ of its ualit of fairness and ustice then,if there be no reco/nition of +hat had transpired prior to suchadudication.#'): #n the lan/ua/e of an A&erican !upre&eCourt decision2 0he actual existence of a statute, prior to sucha deter&ination of unconstitutionalit, is an operative fact and&a have conseuences +hich cannot ustl be i/nored.#');

1or these reasons, this Decision should be heretofore appliedprospectivel.

Conclusion

0he Court renders this Decision to rectif an error +hich haspersisted in the chronicles of our histor. n the final analsis,the Court &ust stri(e do+n the Por( Barrel !ste& asunconstitutional in vie+ of the inherent defects in the rules+ithin +hich it operates. 0o recount, insofar as it has allo+edle/islators to +ield, in varin/ /radations, non-oversi/ht, post-enact&ent authorit in vital areas of bud/et execution, thesste& has violated the principle of separation of po+ersF

insofar as it has conferred unto le/islators the po+er ofappropriation b /ivin/ the& personal, discretionar funds fro&+hich the are able to fund specific proects +hich thethe&selves deter&ine, it has si&ilarl violated the principle ofnon-dele/abilit of le/islative po+er F insofar as it has createda sste& of bud/etin/ +herein ite&s are not textuali8ed intothe appropriations bill, it has flouted the prescribed procedureof present&ent and, in the process, denied the President thepo+er to veto ite&s F insofar as it has diluted the effectivenessof con/ressional oversi/ht b /ivin/ le/islators a sta(e in theaffairs of bud/et execution, an aspect of /overnance +hich

the &a be called to &onitor and scrutini8e, the sste& haseuall i&paired public accountabilit F insofar as it hasauthori8ed le/islators, +ho are national officers, to intervene inaffairs of purel local nature, despite the existence of capablelocal institutions, it has li(e+ise subverted /enuine localautono& F and a/ain, insofar as it has conferred to thePresident the po+er to appropriate funds intended b la+ forener/-related purposes onl to other purposes he &a dee&fit as +ell as other public funds under the broad classificationof #priorit infrastructure develop&ent proects,# it has once&ore trans/ressed the principle of non-dele/abilit.

1or as lon/ as this nation adheres to the rule of la+, an of the&ultifarious unconstitutional &ethods and &echanis&s theCourt has herein pointed out should never a/ain be adopted inan sste& of /overnance, b an na&e or for&, b anse&blance or si&ilarit, b an influence or effect.Disconcertin/ as it is to thin( that a sste& so constitutionallunsound has &onu&entall endured, the Court ur/es thepeople and its co-ste+ards in /overn&ent to loo( for+ard +iththe opti&is& of chan/e and the a+areness of the past. At ati&e of /reat civic unrest and vociferous public debate, theCourt ferventl hopes that its Decision toda, +hile it &a notpur/e all the +ron/s of societ nor brin/ bac( +hat has beenlost, /uides this nation to the path for/ed b the Constitution so

that no one &a heretofore detract fro& its cause nor strafro& its course. After all, this is the Courts bounden dut andno others.

75ERE1"RE, the petitions are PAR0< 3RAN0ED. n vie+of the constitutional violations discussed in this Decision, theCourt hereb declares as NC"N!000"NA<2 >a? the entire'@$4 PDA1 ArticleF >b? all le/al provisions of past and presentCon/ressional Por( Barrel <a+s, such as the previous PDA1and CD1 Articles and the various Con/ressional nsertions,+hich authori8eJd le/islators +hether individuall orcollectivel or/ani8ed into co&&ittees to intervene, assu&eor participate in an of the various post-enact&ent sta/es ofthe bud/et execution, such as but not li&ited to the areas ofproect identification, &odification and revision of proectidentification, fund release andJor fund reali/n&ent, unrelatedto the po+er of con/ressional oversi/htF >c? all le/al provisionsof past and present Con/ressional Por( Barrel <a+s, such asthe previous PDA1 and CD1 Articles and the variousCon/ressional nsertions, +hich conferJred personal, lu&p-su&allocations to le/islators fro& +hich the are able to fundspecific proects +hich the the&selves deter&ineF >d? allinfor&al practices of si&ilar i&port and effect, +hich the Courtsi&ilarl dee&s to be acts of /rave abuse of discretiona&ountin/ to lac( or excess of urisdictionF and >e? the phrases>$? #and for such other purposes as &a be hereafter directedb the President# under !ection ; of Presidential Decree No.=$@ and >'? #to finance the priorit infrastructure develop&entproects# under !ection $' of Presidential Decree No. $;)=, as

a&ended b Presidential Decree No. $==4, for both failin/ thesufficient standard test in violation of the principle of non-dele/abilit of le/islative po+er.

Accordin/l, the Courts te&porar inunction dated !epte&ber$@, '@$4 is hereb declared to be PERMANEN0. 0hus, thedisburse&entJrelease of the re&ainin/ PDA1 funds allocatedfor the ear '@$4, as +ell as for all previous ears, and thefunds sourced fro& >$? the Mala&paa 1unds under thephrase #and for such other purposes as &a be hereafterdirected b the President# pursuant to !ection ; of PresidentialDecree No. =$@, and >'? the Presidential !ocial 1und under the

24












phrase #to finance the priorit infrastructure develop&entproects# pursuant to !ection $' of Presidential Decree No.$;)=, as a&ended b Presidential Decree No. $==4, +hichare, at the ti&e this Decision is pro&ul/ated, not covered bNotice of Cash Allocations >NCAs? but onl b !pecial

Allot&ent Release "rders >!AR"s?, +hether obli/ated or not,are hereb EN%"NED. 0he re&ainin/ PDA1 funds covered bthis per&anent inunction shall not be disbursedJreleased butinstead reverted to the unappropriated surplus of the /eneralfund, +hile the funds under the Mala&paa 1unds and thePresidential !ocial 1und shall re&ain therein to be utili8ed for

their respective special purposes not other+ise declared asunconstitutional.

"n the other hand, due to i&proper recourse and lac( ofproper substantiation, the Court hereb DENE! petitionerspraer see(in/ that the Executive !ecretar andJor theDepart&ent of Bud/et and Mana/e&ent be ordered to providethe public and the Co&&ission on Audit co&pletelistsJschedules or detailed reports related to the avail&ents andutili8ation of the funds subect of these cases. Petitionersaccess to official docu&ents alread available and of publicrecord +hich are related to these funds &ust, ho+ever, not beprohibited but &erel subected to the custodians reasonablere/ulations or an valid statutor prohibition on the sa&e. 0his

denial is +ithout preudice to a proper &anda&us case +hichthe or the Co&&ission on Audit &a choose to pursuethrou/h a separate petition.

0he Court also DENE! petitioners praer to order theinclusion of the funds subect of these cases in the bud/etardeliberations of Con/ress as the sa&e is a &atter left to theprero/ative of the political branches of /overn&ent.

1inall, the Court hereb DREC0! all prosecutorial or/ans ofthe /overn&ent to, +ithin the bounds of reasonable dispatch,investi/ate and accordin/l prosecute all /overn&ent officialsandJor private individuals for possible cri&inal offenses relatedto the irre/ular, i&proper andJor unla+ful

disburse&entJutili8ation of all funds under the Por( Barrel!ste&.

0his Decision is i&&ediatel executor but prospective ineffect.

!" "RDERED.

ESTE!A M. PER!ASBERNABE Associate %ustice

7E C"NCR2

!ee Concurrin/ "pinionMARIA !OURES P. A. SERENO

Chief %ustice

!ee Concurrin/ "pinionANTONIO T. CARPIO

Associate %ustice

N" PAR0PRESBITERO ".#E!ASCO, "R.

Associate %ustice

concur and also oin oin the "pinion of

the concurrin/ opinionof %ustice Carpio.

TERESITA ".!EONAROE

CASTRO Associate %ustice

%ustice Carpio, subectto & Concurrin/ WDissentin/ "pinion.ARTURO . BRION Associate %ustice

IOSAO M.PERA!TA

Associate %ustice

!UCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate %ustice

MARIANO C. E!CASTI!!O

Associate %ustice

oin the concurrin/opinion of %. A.0. Carpio

of the ponenciaROBERTO A. ABA Associate %ustice

MARTIN S.#I!!ARAMA, "R. Associate %ustice

"OSE PORTUGA!PERE$

Associate %ustice

"OSE CATRA!MENO$A

Associate %ustice

BIEN#ENIO !.RE+ES

Associate %ustice

!ee Concurrin/ "pinionMAR#IC MARIO #ICTOR . !EONEN

Associate %ustice

C E R 0 1 C A 0 " N

certif that the conclusions in the above Decision had beenreached in consultation before the cases +ere assi/ned to the+riter of the opinion of the Court.

MARIA !OURES P. A. SERENOChief %ustice

oo/&o/e

XDropped as a part per Me&orandu& dated "ctober$:, '@$4 filed b counsel for petitioners Att. AlfredoB. Molo , et al. Rollo >3.R. No. '@;*))?, p. 4;;.

XX No part.

$ 0he 1ederalist Papers, 1ederalist No. '@.

' Rollo >3.R. No. '@;*))?, pp. 4-*$F rollo >3.R. No.'@;6=4?, pp. 4-$$F and rollo >3.R. No. '@='*$?, pp. '-;.

4 #Por( barrel spendin/, a ter& that traces its ori/insbac( to the era of slaver before the .!. Civil 7ar,+hen slave o+ners occasionall +ould present abarrel of salt por( as a /ift to their slaves. n the

25

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_so_2013.html

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_so_2013.html#carpio

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_so_2013.html#brion


http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_so_2013.html#leonen

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html#rnt1



http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_so_2013.html

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_so_2013.html#carpio



http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_so_2013.html#leonen






&odern usa/e, the ter& refers to con/ress&enscra&blin/ to set aside &one for pet proects in theirdistricts.# >Drud/e, Michael 7. #Por( Barrel !pendin/E&er/in/ as Presidential Ca&pai/n ssue,# Au/ust $,'@@;http2JJiipdi/ital.use&bass./ovJstJen/lishJarticleJ'@@;J@;J'@@;@;@$$;$*@6lcnirellep@.$')$:$4.ht&lYax88'iLr;&5MZ visited "ctober$:, '@$4V.?

6

Bernas, %oauin 3., !.%., 0he $=;: Constitution ofthe Republic of the Philippines2 A Co&&entar, '@@4Edition, p. :;), citin/ Bernas, #1ro& Por( Barrel toBron8e Cas(ets,# 0oda, %anuar 4@, $==6.

* 5easer, %ason, #Pulled Por(2 0he 0hree Part Attac(on Non-!tatutor Ear&ar(s,# %ournal of <e/islation,4* %. <e/is. 4' >'@@=?.[http2JJheinonline.or/J5"<J<andin/Pa/eOcollection\Whandle\hein.ournalsJle/4*Wdiv\)Wid\Wpa/e\Z >visited"ctober $:, '@$4?.

) No/rales, Prospero C. and <a/&an, Edcel C.,

5ouse of Representatives of the Philippines,#nderstandin/ the Por( Barrel,# p. '.[http2JJ+++.con/ress./ov.phJdo+nloadJ$6thJpor(]bar rel.pdfZ >visited "ctober $:, '@$4?.

: Chua, vonne 0. and Cru8, Boo&a, B., #Por( is aPolitical, Not A Develop&ental, 0ool.#[http2JJpci.or/JstoriesJ'@@6Jpor(.ht&lZ visited"ctober '', '@$4V.? !ee also rollo >3.R. No. '@;*))?,pp. 4';-4'=.

; Morton, %ean, #7hat is a Por( BarrelO# 3lobal3ranar, <ifestle Ma/a8ine and Co&&on PlaceBoo( "nline2 !o&ethin/ for Everone, Au/ust $=,'@$4. [http2JJ+++./lobal/ranar.or/J'@$4J@;J$=J+hat-is-a-por(-barrelJY.nrnh1Navc+ Z >visited "ctober$:, '@$4?.

= %ison, %ohn Ra&ond, #7hat does the 9por( barrel9sca& su//est about the Philippine /overn&entO#nternational Association for Political !cience!tudents, !epte&ber $@, '@$4. [http2JJ+++.iapss.or/Jindex.phpJarticlesJite&J=4-+hat-does-the-por(-barrel-sca&-su//est-about-the-philippine-/overn&entZ>visited "ctober $:, '@$4?. !ee also <lanes,%onathan, #Por( barrel no+in/ the issue,# !unstarBa/uio, "ctober '4, '@$4.[http2JJ+++.sunstar.co&.phJba/uioJopinionJ'@$4J@=J@*Jllanes-por(- barrel-

(no+in/-issue-4@$*=;Z >visited "ctober $:, '@$4?.

$@ Entitled #AN AC0 MAN3 APPR"PRA0"N!1"R PB<C 7"R!,# approved on March $@,$=''.

$$ #Act 4@66, the first por( barrel appropriation,essentiall divided public +or(s proects into t+otpes. 0he first tpeTnational and other buildin/s,roads and brid/es in provinces, and li/hthouses,buos and beacons, and necessar &echanical

euip&ent of li/hthousesTfell directl under the urisdiction of the director of public +or(s, for +hichhis office received appropriations. 0he second /roupTpolice barrac(s, nor&al school and other publicbuildin/s, and certain tpes of roads and brid/es,artesian +ells, +harves, piers and other shoreprotection +or(s, and cable, tele/raph, and telephonelinesTis the forerunner of the infa&ous por( barrel.

Althou/h the proects fallin/ under the second tpe+ere to be distributed at the discretion of thesecretar of co&&erce and co&&unications, he

needed prior approval fro& a oint co&&ittee electedb the !enate and 5ouse of Representatives. 0henod of either the oint co&&ittee or a co&&ittee&e&ber it had authori8ed +as also reuired beforethe co&&erce and co&&unications secretar couldtransfer unspent portions of one ite& to another ite&.#>E&phases supplied? >Chua, vonne 0. and Cru8,Boo&a, B., #Por( b an na&e,# ERA 1iles, Au/ust'4, '@$4. [http2JJverafiles.or/Jpor(-b-an-na&eJZvisited "ctober $6, '@$4V?.

$' !ec. 4. 0he su&s appropriated in para/raphs >c?,>/?, >l?, and >s? of this Act shall be available fori&&ediate expenditure b the Director of Public

7or(s, but those appropriated in the otherpara/raphs shall be distributed in the discretion of the!ecretar of Co&&erce and Co&&unications, subecto the approval of a oint co&&ittee elected b the!enate and the 5ouse of Representatives. 0heco&&ittee fro& each 5ouse &a authori8e one of its&e&bers to approve the distribution &ade b the!ecretar of Co&&erce and Co&&unications, +ho+ith the approval of said oint co&&ittee, or of theauthori8ed &e&bers thereof &a, for the purposes ofsaid distribution, transfer unexpended portions of anite& of appropriation. >E&phases supplied?

$4 0hose !ection $ >c?, >/?, >l?, and >s? of Act 4@66#shall be available for i&&ediate expenditure b theDirector of Public 7or(s.#

$6 !ection 4, Act 4@66.

$* Chua, vonne 0. and Cru8, Boo&a, B., #Por( b anna&e,# ERA 1iles, Au/ust '4, '@$4.[http2JJverafiles.or/Jpor(-b-an-na&eJZ >visited"ctober $6, '@$4?.

$) d.

$: d.

$; d.

$= No/rales, Prospero C. and <a/&an, Edcel C.,5ouse of Representatives of the Philippines,#nderstandin/ the Por( Barrel,#[http2JJ+++.con/ress./ov.phJdo+nloadJ$6thJpor(]barrel.pdf Z >visited "ctober $:, '@$4?.

'@ Chua, vonne 0. and Cru8, Boo&a, B., #Por( b anna&e,# ERA 1iles, Au/ust '4, '@$4.

26






































[http2JJverafiles.or/Jpor(-b-an-na&eJZ >visited"ctober $6, '@$4?.

'$ d.

'' Priorit Develop&ent Assistance 1und >PDA1? andarious nfrastructures includin/ <ocal Proects><P?, !pecial Audits "ffice Report No. '@$'-@4,

Au/ust $6, '@$4 >CoA Report?, p. '.

'4 la/an, arol, #Data A DaF CA, CD1, PDA1O Por(is por( is por(,# Monepolitics, A Date %ournalis&Proect for the Philippine Center for nvesti/ative%ournalis&, Au/ust $, '@$4[http2JJ&onepolitics.pci.or/Jdata-a-daJcia-cdf-pdaf-por(-is-por(-is-por(JZ >visited "ctober $6, '@$4?.

'6 Republic Act No. >RA? );4$.

'* !pecial Provision $, Article S<, RA :@:; >$==$CD1 Article?, and !pecial Provision $, Article S<>$=='?, RA :$;@ >$==' CD1 Article? are si&ilarl+orded as follo+s2 !pecial Provision $.

se and Release of 1unds. 0he a&ountherein appropriated shall be used forinfrastructure and other priorit proects andactivities upon approval b the President ofthe Philippines and shall be released directlto the appropriate i&ple&entin/ a/enc >x xx for $==$?V, subect to the sub&ission of thereuired list of proects and activities.>E&phases supplied?

') Chua, vonne 0. and Cru8, Boo&a, B., #Por( b anna&e,# ERA 1iles, Au/ust '4, '@$4.[http2JJverafiles.or/Jpor(-b-an-na&eJZ >visited"ctober $6, '@$4?.

': d.

'; !pecial Provision $, Article SSS, RA :)6* >$==4CD1 Article? provides2

!pecial Provision

$. se and Release of 1unds.

0he a&ount herein appropriated shall beused for infrastructure and other prioritproects and activities as proposed and

identified b officials concerned accordin/ tothe follo+in/ allocations2Representatives, P$',*@@,@@@ eachF!enators P$;,@@@,@@@ eachF ice-President, P'@,@@@,@@@. 0he fund shall beauto&aticall released uarterl b +a of

Advice of Allot&ent and Notice of Cash Allocation directl to the assi/nedi&ple&entin/ a/enc not later than five >*?das after the be/innin/ of each uarterupon sub&ission of the list of proects and

activities b the officials concerned.>E&phases supplied?

'= !ee !pecial Provision $, $==4 CD1 ArticleF id.

4@ !pecial Provision $, Article S<, RA :))4 >$==6CD1 Article? provides2

!pecial Provisions


0he a&ount herein appropriated shall beused for infrastructure, purchase ofa&bulances and co&puters and otherpriorit proects and activities, and creditfacilities to ualified beneficiaries asproposed and identified b officialsconcerned accordin/ to the follo+in/allocations2 Representatives,P$',*@@,@@@eachF !enators P$;,@@@,@@@ eachF ice-President, P'@,@@@,@@@F PR"DED, 0hat,the said credit facilities shall be constitutedas a revolvin/ fund to be ad&inistered b a

/overn&ent financial institution >31? as atrust fund for lendin/ operations. Prior earsreleases to local /overn&ent units andnational /overn&ent a/encies for thispurpose shall be turned over to the/overn&ent financial institution +hich shallbe the sole ad&inistrator of credit facilitiesreleased fro& this fund.

0he fund shall be auto&aticall releaseduarterl b +a of Advice of Allot&ents andNotice of Cash Allocation directl to theassi/ned i&ple&entin/ a/enc not later thanfive >*? das after the be/innin/ of each

uarter upon sub&ission of the list ofproects and activities b the officialsconcerned. >E&phases supplied?

4$ !pecial Provision $, Article S<, RA :;6* >$==*CD1 Article? provides2

!pecial Provisions


0he a&ount herein appropriated shall beused for infrastructure, purchase ofeuip&ent and other priorit proects andactivities as proposed and identified bofficials concerned accordin/ to the follo+in/allocations2 Representatives, P$',*@@,@@@eachF !enators P$;,@@@,@@@ eachF ice-President,P'@,@@@,@@@.

0he fund shall be auto&aticall releasedse&i-annuall b +a of Advice of Allot&entand Notice of Cash Allocation directl to thedesi/nated i&ple&entin/ a/enc not laterthan five >*? das after the be/innin/ of each

27

























se&ester upon sub&ission of the list ofproects and activities b the officialsconcerned. >E&phases supplied?

4' !pecial Provision $, Article S<, RA ;$:6 >$==)CD1 Article? provides2

!pecial Provisions

$. se and Release of 1und.

0he a&ount herein appropriated shall beused for infrastructure, purchase ofeuip&ent and other priorit proects andactivities, includin/ current operatin/expenditures, except creation of ne+ plantillapositions, as proposed and identified bofficials concerned accordin/ to the follo+in/allocations2 Representatives, 0+elve Million1ive 5undred 0housand Pesos>P$',*@@,@@@? eachF !enators, Ei/hteenMillion Pesos >P$;,@@@,@@@? eachF ice-President, 0+ent Million Pesos>P'@,@@@,@@@?.

0he 1und shall be released se&i-annuall b+a of !pecial Allot&ent Release "rder andNotice of Cash Allocation directl to thedesi/nated i&ple&entin/ a/enc not laterthan thirt >4@? das after the be/innin/ ofeach se&ester upon sub&ission of the list of proects and activities b the officialsconcerned. >E&phases supplied?

44 !pecial Provision ' of the $==6 CD1 Article, !pecialProvision ' of the $==* CD1 Article and !pecialProvision ' of the $==) CD1 Article are si&ilarl+orded as follo+s2

'. !ub&ission of Luarterl >$==6?J!e&i- Annual >$==* and $==)?V Reports. 0heDepart&ent of Bud/et and Mana/e&entshall sub&it +ithin thirt >4@? das after theend of each uarter >$==6?Jse&ester >$==*and $==)?V a report to the 5ouse Co&&itteeon Appropriations and the !enate Co&&itteeon 1inance on the releases &ade fro& this1und. 0he report shall include the listin/ ofthe proects, locations, i&ple&entin/a/encies stated >order of co&&itteesinterchan/ed in $==6 and $==)?V and theendorsin/ officials. >E&phases supplied?

46 !pecial Provision ', Article S<, RA ;'*@ >$==:CD1 Article? provides2

!pecial Provisions

x x x x

'. Publication of Countr+ide Develop&ent1und Proects. 7ithin thirt >4@? das afterthe si/nin/ of this Act into la+, the Me&bers

of Con/ress and the ice-President shall, inconsultation +ith the i&ple&entin/ a/encconcerned, sub&it to the Depart&ent ofBud/et and Mana/e&ent the list of fiftpercent >*@? of proects to be funded fro&the allocation fro& the Countr+ideDevelop&ent 1und +hich shall be dulendorsed b the !enate President and theChair&an of the Co&&ittee on 1inance inthe case of the !enate and the !pea(er ofthe 5ouse of Representatives and the

Chair&an of the Co&&ittee on Appropriations in the case of the 5ouse ofRepresentatives, and the re&ainin/ fiftpercent >*@? +ithin six >)? &onthsthereafter. 0he list shall identif the specificproects, location, i&ple&entin/ a/encies,and tar/et beneficiaries and shall be thebasis for the release of funds. 0he said listshall be published in a ne+spaper of /eneralcirculation b the Depart&ent of Bud/et andMana/e&ent. No funds appropriated hereinshall be disbursed for proects not includedin the list herein reuired. >E&phasessupplied?

4* !ee !pecial Provision ', $==: CD1 ArticleF id.

4) !pecial Provision ', Article S<, RA ;*'' >$==;CD1 Article? provides2

!pecial Provisions

x x x x

'. Publication of Countr+ide Develop&ent1und Proects. x x x PR"DED, 0hat saidpublication is not a reuire&ent for therelease of funds. x x x x >E&phasessupplied?

4: Chua, vonne 0. and Cru8, Boo&a, B., #Por( b anna&e,# ERA 1iles, Au/ust '4, '@$4.[http2JJverafiles.or/Jpor(-b-an-na&eJZ >visited"ctober $6, '@$4?.

4; d.

6= Rollo >3.R. No. '@;*))?, pp. 44*-44), citin/ParreGo, Earl, #Perils of Por(,# Philippine Center fornvesti/ative %ournalis&, %une 4-6, $==;. Available at[http2JJpci.or/JstoriesJ$==;Jpor(.ht&lZ

6@ d.

6$ d.

6' RA ;:6* entitled #AN AC0 APPR"PRA0N31ND! 1"R 05E "PERA0"N "1 05E3"ERNMEN0 "1 05E REPB<C "1 05EP5<PPNE! 1R"M %ANAR "NE 0"DECEMBER 05R0 "NE, NNE0EEN 5NDREDNNE0 NNE, AND 1"R "05ER PRP"!E!.#

28

























64 !pecial Provision $, Article S<, 1ood !ecuritPro/ra& 1und, RA ;:6* provides2

!pecial Provision

$. se and Release of 1und. 0he a&ountherein authori8ed shall be used to supportthe 1ood !ecurit Pro/ra& of the/overn&ent, +hich shall include far&-to-&ar(et roads, post harvest facilities and

other a/ricultural related infrastructures.Releases fro& this fund shall be &adedirectl to the i&ple&entin/ a/enc subectto prior consultation +ith the Me&bers ofCon/ress concerned. >E&phases supplied?

66 !pecial Provision $, Article S<S,

<in/ap Para sa Mahihirap

Pro/ra& 1und, RA ;:6* provides2

!pecial Provision

$. se and Release of 1und. 0he a&ountherein appropriated for the <in/ap Para saMahihirap Pro/ra& 1und shall be usedexclusivel to satisf the &ini&u& basicneeds of poor co&&unities anddisadvanta/ed sectors2 PR"DED, 0hatsuch a&ount shall be released directl to thei&ple&entin/ a/enc upon prior consultation+ith the Me&bers of Con/ress concerned.>E&phases supplied?

6* !pecial Provision $, Article <, RuralJrbanDevelop&ent nfrastructure Pro/ra& 1und, RA ;:6*

provides2

!pecial Provision

$. se and Release of 1und. 0he a&ountherein authori8ed shall be used to fundinfrastructure reuire&ents of the ruralJurbanareas +hich shall be released directl to thei&ple&entin/ a/enc upon prior consultation+ith the respective Me&bers of Con/ress.>E&phases supplied?

6) !pecial Provision $, Article S<S, RA ;:)@ >'@@@PDA1 Article? provides2

!pecial Provision

$. se and release of the 1und. 0he a&ountherein appropriated shall be used to fundpriorit pro/ra&s and proects as indicatedunder Purpose $2 PR"DED, 0hat sucha&ount shall be released directl to thei&ple&entin/ a/enc concerned upon priorconsultation +ith the respectiveRepresentative of the District2 PR"DED,

1R05ER, 0hat the herein allocation &abe reali/ned as necessar to an expensecate/or2 PR"DED, 1NA<<, 0hat noa&ount shall be used to fund personalservices and other personal benefits.>E&phases supplied?

6: !ee !pecial Provision $, '@@@ PDA1 ArticleF id.

6; !ection '* >:?, Article , of the $=;: Philippine

Constitution >$=;: Constitution? provides that

#if, b the end of an fiscal ear, theCon/ress shall have failed to pass the/eneral appropriations bill for the ensuin/fiscal ear, the /eneral appropriations la+ forthe precedin/ fiscal ear shall be dee&edreenacted and shall re&ain in force andeffect until the /eneral appropriations bill ispassed b the Con/ress.# >E&phasissupplied?

6= !pecial Provision $, Article <, RA =$)' >'@@' PDA1 Article? provides2

$. se and Release of the 1und. 0hea&ount herein appropriated shall be used tofund priorit pro/ra&s and proects or to fundcounterpart for forei/n-assisted pro/ra&sand proects2

PR"DED, 0hat such a&ount shall bereleased directl to the i&ple&entin/ a/encor <ocal 3overn&ent nit concerned.>E&phases supplied?

*@ !pecial Provision $, Article S<, RA ='@), '@@43AA >'@@4 PDA1 Article? provides2

!pecial Provision

$. se and Release of the 1und. 0hea&ount herein appropriated shall be used tofund priorit pro/ra&s and proects or to fundthe reuired counterpart for forei/n-assistedpro/ra&s and proects2 PR"DED, 0hatsuch a&ount shall be released directl to thei&ple&entin/ a/enc or <ocal 3overn&entnit concerned2 PR"DED, 1R05ER,0hat the allocations authori8ed herein &abe reali/ned to an expense class, ifdee&ed necessar2 PR"DED,

1R05ERM"RE, 0hat a &axi&u& of tenpercent >$@? of the authori8ed allocationsb district &a be used for the procure&entof rice and other basic co&&odities +hichshall be purchased fro& the National 1ood

Authorit.

*$ !pecial Provision $, Article S, RA ='@) provides

!pecial Provision No. $ Restriction on theDele/ation of Proect &ple&entation 0he

29





















i&ple&entation of the proects funded hereinshall not be dele/ated to other a/encies,except those proects to be i&ple&ented bthe En/ineerin/ Bri/ades of the A1P andinter-depart&ent proects underta(en bother offices and a/encies includin/ local/overn&ent units +ith de&onstratedcapabilit to actuall i&ple&ent the proectsb the&selves upon consultation +ith theMe&bers of Con/ress concerned. n allcases the DP75 shall exercise technical

supervision over proects. >E&phasissupplied?

*' !pecial Provision 4, Article S<, RA ='@) provides2

!pecial Provision No. 4 !ub&ission of the<ist of !chool Buildin/s 7ithin 4@ das afterthe si/nin/ of this Act into la+, >DepEd? afterconsultation +ith the representative of thele/islative district concerned, shall sub&it toDBM the list of *@ of school buildin/s to beconstructed ever &unicipalit x x x. 0he listas sub&itted shall be the basis for therelease of funds. >E&phasis supplied?

*4 Rollo >3.R. No. '@;*))?, p. **:.

*6 !pecial Provision $, Article <, RA =44) >'@@* PDA1 Article? provides2

!pecial Provision>s?

$. se and Release of the 1und. 0hea&ount appropriated herein shall be used tofund priorit pro/ra&s and proects under theten point a/enda of the national /overn&entand shall be released directl to the

i&ple&entin/ a/encies as indicatedhereunder, to +it2

PROGRAM>PRO"ECT IMP!EMENTINGAGENC+

Purchase of 0 Euip&ent DepEdJ0E!DAJC5EDJ!CsJ<3s

!cholarship 0E!DAJC5EDJ!CsJ<3s

Assistance to ndi/ent Patients Confined at the 5ospitals nderD"5 ncludin/ !pecialt 5ospitals

D"5J!pecialt5ospitals

Assistance to ndi/ent Patients at the 5ospitals Devolved to<3s and R5s <3s

nsurance Pre&iu& Philhealth

!&all W Mediu& EnterpriseJ<ivelihood D0J0<RCJDAJCDA

Co&prehensive nte/rated Deliver of !ocial !ervices D!7D

Baran/aJRural Electrification D"EJNEA

Construction of 7ater !ste&

nstallation of PipesJPu&psJ0an(s

!pecific Pro/ra&s and Proects to Address the Pro-PoorPro/ra&s of 3overn&ent

ConstructionJRepairJ Rehabilitation of the follo+in/2 Roads andBrid/esJ1lood ControlJ!chool buildin/s 5ospitals 5ealth1acilitiesJPublic Mar(etsJMulti-Purpose Buildin/sJMulti-Purpose

Pave&ents

ConstructionJRepairJ Rehabilitation of rri/ation 1acilities

>E&phasis supplied?

** d.

*) Rollo >3.R. No. '@;*))?, p. **;.

*: !ee !pecial Provision $, Article S<, RA =6@$.

*; !ee !pecial Provision $, Article S<, RA =6=;.

*= !ee !pecial Provision $, Article S<S, RA =*'6.

)@ !ee !pecial Provision $, Article S<, RA ==:@.

)$ 1or instance, !pecial Provisions ' and 4, ArticleS<, RA =44) providin/ for the '@@* DepEd !choolBuildin/ Pro/ra&, and !pecial Provisions $ and $),

Article S, RA =6@$ providin/ for the '@@: DP75Re/ular Bud/et respectivel state2 '@@* DepEd!chool Buildin/ Pro/ra& !pecial Provision No. '

Allocation of !chool Buildin/s2 0he a&ount allotted

under Purpose $ shall be apportioned as follo+s2 >$?fift percent >*@? to be allocated pro-rata accordin/to each le/islative districts student population x x xF>'? fort percent >6@? to be allocated onl a&on/those le/islative districts +ith classroo& shorta/es x xxF >4? ten percent >$@? to be allocated in accordancex x x.

!pecial Provision No. 4 !ub&ission of the<ist of !chool Buildin/s2 7ithin 4@ das afterthe si/nin/ of this Act into la+, the DepEdafter consultation +ith the representative ofthe le/islative districts concerned, shallsub&it to DBM the list of fift percent >*@?of school buildin/s to be constructed in ever&unicipalit x x x. 0he list as sub&itted shallbe the basis for the release of funds x x x.>E&phases supplied?

'@@: DP75 Re/ular Bud/et

!pecial Provision No. $ Restriction onDele/ation of Proect &ple&entation2 0hei&ple&entation of the proect funded hereinshall not be dele/ated to other a/encies,

30























except those proects to be i&ple&ented bthe A1P Corps of En/ineers, and inter-depart&ent proects to be underta(en bother offices and a/encies, includin/ local/overn&ent units ><3s? +ith de&onstratedcapabilit to actuall i&ple&ent the proectb the&selves upon consultation +ith therepresentative of the le/islative districtconcerned x x x.

!pecial Provision No. $) Reali/n&ent of1unds2 0he !ecretar of Public 7or(s and5i/h+as is authori8ed to reali/n fundsreleased fro& appropriations x x x fro& oneproectJscope of +or( to another2PR"DED, that x x x >iii? the reuest is +iththe concurrence of the le/islator concerned

x x x. >E&phasis supplied?

)' Rollo >3.R. No. '@;*))? , p. **=, citin/ !ection '.Aof RA =4*;, other+ise (no+n as the #!upple&entalBud/et for '@@).#

)4

d. at **=-*)@.

)6 #As a pri&ar aspect of the Philippine 3overn&ent9spublic procure&ent refor& a/enda, the 3overn&entProcure&ent Polic Board >3PPB? +as establishedb virtue of Republic Act No. =$;6 >R.A. =$;6? as anindependent inter-a/enc bod that is i&partial,transparent and effective, +ith private sectorrepresentation. As established in !ection )4 of R.A.=$;6, the 3PPB shall have the follo+in/ duties andresponsibilities2 $. 0o protect national interest in all&atters affectin/ public procure&ent, havin/ duere/ard to the countr9s re/ional and internationalobli/ationsF '. 0o for&ulate and a&end publicprocure&ent policies, rules and re/ulations, anda&end, +henever necessar, the i&ple&entin/ rulesand re/ulations Part A >RR-A?F 4. 0o prepare a/eneric procure&ent &anual and standard biddin/for&s for procure&entF 6. 0o ensure the properi&ple&entation b the procurin/ entities of the Act, itsRR-A and all other relevant rules and re/ulationspertainin/ to public procure&entF *. 0o establish asustainable trainin/ pro/ra& to develop the capacitof 3overn&ent procure&ent officers and e&ploees,and to ensure the conduct of re/ular procure&enttrainin/ pro/ra&s b the procurin/ entitiesF and ). 0oconduct an annual revie+ of the effectiveness of the

Act and reco&&end an a&end&ents thereto, as&a be necessar.

x x x x#[http2JJ+++./ppb./ov.phJabout]usJ/ppb.ht&lZ

>visited "ctober '4, '@$4?.

)* Entitled #AMENDMEN0 "1 !EC0"N *4 "1 05EMP<EMEN0N3 R<E! AND RE3<A0"N! PAR0

A "1 REPB<C AC0 =$;6 AND PRE!CRBN33DE<NE! "N PAR0CPA0"N "1 N"N-3"ERNMEN0A< "R3ANÂ0"N! N PB<CPR"CREMEN0,# approved %une '=, '@@:.

)) Entitled #AN AC0 PR"DN3 1"R 05EM"DERNÂ0"N, !0ANDARDÂ0"N ANDRE3<A0"N "1 05E PR"CREMEN0

AC00E! "1 05E 3"ERNMEN0 AND 1"R"05ER PRP"!E!.#

): !ec. 6;. Alternative Methods. - !ubect to the priorapproval of the 5ead of the Procurin/ Entit or hisdul authori8ed representative, and +henever ustifiedb the conditions provided in this Act, the Procurin/Entit &a, in order to pro&ote econo& andefficienc, resort to an of the follo+in/ alternative&ethods of Procure&ent2

x x x x

>e? Ne/otiated Procure&ent - a &ethod ofProcure&ent that &a be resorted under theextraordinar circu&stances provided for in!ection *4 of this Act and other instancesthat shall be specified in the RR, +herebthe Procurin/ Entit directl ne/otiates acontract +ith a technicall, le/all andfinanciall capable supplier, contractor orconsultant.

x x x x

); As defined in !ection *>o? of RA =$;6, the ter&#Procurin/ Entit# refers to an branch, depart&ent,office, a/enc, or instru&entalit of the /overn&ent,includin/ state universities and colle/es, /overn&ent-o+ned andJor - controlled corporations, /overn&entfinancial institutions, and local /overn&ent unitsprocurin/ 3oods, Consultin/ !ervices andnfrastructure Proects.

)= Rollo >3.R. No. '@;*))?, p. *)6, citin/ 3PPBResolution $'-'@@:.

















Paredes Case 31 Pages

Documents

Transcript of Paredes Case 31 Pages