Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Belgica Et Al Vs Exec Sec PDAF Case Digest
Belgica Et Al Vs Exec Sec PDAF Case Digest
Facts:
The case involves consolidated petitions
constitutionality of the Pork Barrel System.
for
certiorari
assailing
the
Issue(s):
Procedural Issues
1. WON there is an actual case or controversy? - YES
The requirement of contrariety of legal rights is clearly satisfied by the antagonistic
positions of the parties on the constitutionality of the Pork Barrel System. Also the
questions in these consolidated cases are ripe for adjudication since the
challenged funds and the provisions allowing for their utilization such as
the 2013 GAA for the PDAF, PD 910 for the Malampaya Funds and PD 1869, as
amended by PD 1993, for the Presidential Social Fund are currently existing
and operational, hence, there exists an immediate or threatened injury to
petitioners as a result of the unconstitutional use of these public funds.
appropriations meant for enforcement and since they are made by individual
legislators after the GAA is passed, they occur outside the law. As such, the
real appropriations made under the 2013 PDAF Article is not the P24.79 Billion
allocated for the entire PDAF, but rather the post-enactment determinations made
the individual legislators which are, to repeat, occurrences outside the law.
2. Non-delegability of Legislative Power.
exercise of the power of appropriation and given that the 2013 PDAF Article
authorizes individual legislators to perform the same, the legislators then,
have been conferred the power to legislate which the Constitution does not,
however, allow.
3. Checks and Balances.
a. Item-Veto Power of the President
The remaining PDAF funds covered by the permanent injunction shall not be
disbursed/released but instead reverted to the unappropriated surplus of the
general fund, while the funds under the Malampaya Funds and the Presidential
Social Fund shall remain therein to be utilized for their respective special purposes
not otherwise declared as unconstitutional.