Case Digests

Pork Barrel
Belgica V. Executive Secretary

November 19, 2013
Facts:
The Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), otherwise known as Pork Barrel
included an express statement on the lump-sum amounts allocated to individual legislators and
the Vice President. Representatives were given an amount of Php 70 million each, where Php 40
million would be allotted for projects that would incur greater costs, whereas the other Php 30
million would be spent on “soft projects.” On the other hand, senators and the Vice President
were vested with Php 200 million each. The Php 200 million is broken down into 2, Php 100
million for “hard projects,” and the other half to will have been spent on “soft projects.”
Moreover, this article allowed for a one-time realignment of funds. This provision also allowed
the Secretaries of Education, Health, Social Welfare and Development, Interior and Local
Government, Environment and Natural Resources, Energy, and Public Works and Highways to
realign to do the same. However, this entailed that they comply with the following conditions,
namely:
(a) realignment is within the same implementing unit and same project category as the original
project, for infrastructure projects;
(b) allotment released has not yet been obligated for the original scope of work, and
(c) the request for realignment is with the concurrence of the legislator concerned.
The legislator is responsible for choosing a project from the priority list of beneficiaries.
In addition, in the 2012 and 2013 PDAF articles, the legislator is subject to provisions regarding
the allocations and fund realignment. The 2013 version for the PDAF realignment also allowed
Local Government Units who have the technical capability to implement projects to be identified
as implementing agencies. Moreover, legislators were granted the privilege of identifying
programs or projects outside of his legislative district, provided that he or she secure a written
concurrence the intended outside-district legislator, as endorsed by the Speaker of the House,
under the PDAF article. However, a restriction in this article is giving assistance to indigent
patients and scholarships.
Lastly, any realignment of PDAF funds, modification, revision of project identification,
and requests for release of funds must be favorably endorsed by the House Committee on
Appropriations and Senate Committee on Finance.
Issue:
Whether or not the 2013 PDAF Article and all other Congressional Pork Barrel Law are
unconstitutional considering that they violate the principles of/constitutional provisions on the
separation of powers, and non-delegability of legislative power.
Ruling:
The Court decided to cancel the Pok Barrel System as it views it unconstitutional. According to
the verdict, the PDAF has violated a constitutional provision that states the separation of powers.
The Supreme Court concluded that PDAF has allowed legislators to exercise powers beyond
their jurisdiction. It has allowed them to wield, in varying gradations, non-oversight,
post-enactment authority in vital areas of budget execution. Moreover, it has also violated the
principle of non-delegability of legislative power.
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html
Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP)

Araullo v. Aquino
G.R. 209287
February 3, 2015
Facts:
The main problem that has sparked many arguments on the constitutionality of DAP is
rooted in the provision Section 29(1) of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. This provision is a
fundamental law that firmly states that "[n]o money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in
pursuance of an appropriation made by law."
According to the consolidated petitions, the DAP violated this provision by making it
possible for the Executive to allocate public money coming from funds of several agencies in
order to pave the way for the President to exercise his constitutional authority in order to transfer
funds out of savings make the appropriations of offices greater within the Executive Branch of
the Government.
Issue:
The concern was raised that the acts and practices under DAP, the violation of Section
25(5) Article IV, the neglect of the principle of separation of power and protection are rendered
unconstitutional.
Ruling:
The acts and practices of DAP were unconstitutional. This is mainly because of the
violation of Section 25(5) since the funds used are saving that deviated from the General
Appropriation Act. Moreover, the President exceeded his power to augment, thereby making
these acts and practices illegal. According to Section 25(5) Article IV, the President has the
power to suspend or stop expenditure. However, this does not guarantee that savings are earned.
This can only be established if it has been validated that these funds or appropriations are not
attached to any obligation or encumbrance. Moreover, it must also be confirmed that the
intended appropriation of the funds has been completed, discontinued, or abandoned.

Case Digests

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digests

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pork Barrel

Belgica V. Executive Secretary

Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP)

You might also like