BELGICA v.

EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY OCHOA
GR NO. 208566
NOVEMBER 19, 2013
 NATURE
• Consolidated petitions
• Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
• Assail the constitutionality of the Pork Barrel
System
 Facts
• The NBI investigation was spawned by sworn
affidavits of six (6) whistle-blowers who
declared that JLN Corporation (Janet Lim
Napoles) had swindled billions of pesos from
the public coffers for “ghost projects” using
dummy NGOs.
 Facts (cont.)
• Criminal offense were filed before the Office
of the Ombudsman, charging five (5)
lawmakers for Plunder, and three (3) other
lawmakers for Malversation, Direct Bribery,
and Violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act.
 Facts (Cont.)
• Also, recommended to be charged in the
complaints are some of the lawmaker’s chief-
of-staff or representatives, the heads and
other officials of three (3) implementing
agencies, and the several presidents of the
NGOs set up by Napoles.
 Facts (Cont.)
• Whistle-blowers alleged that at least Php 900
million from royalties in the operation of the
Malampaya Gas Project of Palawan Province
intended for agrarian reform beneficiaries
has gone into a dummy NGO.
 Facts (Cont.)
• GR No. 208493
• SJS filed a Petition for Prohibition seeking
that the “Pork Barrel System” be declared
unconstitutional, and a writ of prohibition be
issued permanently.
 Facts (Cont.)
• GR No. 208566
• Belgica, et al., filed an Urgent Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition with Prayer for the Immediate Issuance of TRO
and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction seeking that the
annual “Pork Barrel System”, presently embodied in the
provisions of GAA 2013 which provided for the 2013
PDAF, and the Executive’s lump-sum, discretionary funds,
such as Malampaya Funds and the Presidential Social
Fund, be declared unconstitutional and null and void for
being acts constituting grave abuse of discretion.
 Facts (Cont.)
• UDK-14951
• A petition was filed seeking that the PDAF be
declared unconstitutional, and a cease and
desist order be issued restraining President
Aquino III and Secretary Abad from releasing
such funds to Members of Congress.
 Issue (1)
• WON the 2013 PDAF Article and all Congressional Pork
Barrel Laws similar thereto are unconstitutional
considering that they violate the constitutional
provisions on
• (a) separation of powers;
• (b)non-delegability of legislative power;
• (c) checks and balance;
• (d)accountability;
• (e) political dynasties; and
• (f) local autonomy.
 Ruling (1)
YES, the PDAF is unconstitutional.

 Separation of Powers

The post-enactment measures which govern the areas of project

identification, fund release and fund realignment are not related to
functions of congressional oversight and, hence, allow legislators to
intervene and/or assume duties that properly belong to the sphere of
budget execution. This violates the principle of separation of
powers. Congress‘role must be confined to mere oversight that must be
confined to:  (1) scrutiny and (2) investigation and monitoring of the
implementation of laws. Any action or step beyond that will undermine
the separation of powers guaranteed by the constitution
 Ruling (1) cont.
• Non-delegability of legislative power
• The power to appropriate must be exercised
only through legislation is clear from Section
29 (1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution
—”No money shall be paid out of the
treasury except in pursuance of an
appropriation made by law.”
 Ruling (1) cont.
• Checks and balances
• Under the 2013 PDAF Article, the amount of
Php 24.79 B only appears as a collective
allocation since the said amount would be
further divided among individual legislators
who would then receive personal lump-sum
allocations, and could, after the GAA is passed,
effectively appropriate PDAF Funds based on
their own discretion.
 Ruling (1) cont.
• This kind of lump-sum/post-enactment
legislative identification budgeting system
fosters the creation of---budget within the
budget which subverts the prescribed
procedure of presentment and consequently
impairs the President’s power of item veto.
 Ruling (1) cont.
• Accountability
• The Congressional Pork Barrel partially prevents
accountability as Congress is incapable of checking
itself or its members.
• The fact that individual legislators are given post-
enactment roles in the implementation of the
budget makes it difficult for them to become
disinterested observers when scrutinizing,
investigating or monitoring the implementation of
the appropriation law.
 Ruling (1) cont.
• Political dynasties
• Since there appears to be no standing law
which crystallizes the policy on political
dynasties as may be defined by law, the Court
must defer from ruling on this issue.
 Ruling (1) Cont.
• Local autonomy
• The Congressional Pork Barrel goes against
the constitutional principles on local
autonomy since it allows districts
representatives, who are national officers, to
substitute their judgments in utilizing public
funds for local development.
 Issue (2)
• Whether or not the phrases (under Section 8
of PD 910, relating to the Malampaya Funds,
and under Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended
by PD 1993, relating to the Presidential Social
Fund, are unconstitutional insofar as they
constitute undue delegations of legislative
power.
 Ruling (2)
• Yes.

• Sec 8 of PD 910- the phrase “and for such other purposes as may
be hereafter directed by the President”‖ constitutes an undue
delegation of legislative power insofar as it does not lay down a
sufficient standard to adequately determine the limits of the
President‘s authority with respect to the purpose for which the
Malampaya Funds may be used. It gives the President wide
latitude to use the Malampaya Funds for any other purpose he
may direct and, in effect, allows him to unilaterally appropriate
public funds beyond the purview of the law.”
 Ruling (2) cont.
• Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993- the
phrases:

• (b) "to finance the priority infrastructure

development projects” was declared constitutional.
IT INDICATED PURPOSE ADEQUATELY CURTAILS THE
AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT TO SPEND THE
PRESIDENTIAL SOCIAL FUND ONLY FOR
RESTORATION PURPOSES WHICH ARISE FROM
CALAMITIES.
 Ruling (2) cont.
• (b)” and to finance the restoration of damaged or
destroyed facilities due to calamities, as may be directed
and authorized by the Office of the President of the
Philippines” was declared unconstitutional. IT GIVES THE
PRESIDENT CARTE BLANCHE AUTHORITY TO USE THE
SAME FUND FOR ANY INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT HE MAY
SO DETERMINE AS A ―PRIORITY‖. VERILY, THE LAW DOES
NOT SUPPLY A DEFINITION OF ―PRIORITY
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS‖ AND
HENCE, LEAVES THE PRESIDENT WITHOUT ANY GUIDELINE
TO CONSTRUE THE SAME.