FYDAH MARIE SABANDO LLB-1 SEC C

FYDAH MARIE SABANDO LLB-1 SEC C

Belgica v. Ochoa, Jr.G.R. No. 208566 November 19, 2013

FACTS:The PriorityDevelopmentAssistanceFund (PDAF) or PorkBarrelis a yearly lump sum discretionary fund or regular allocation of public funds for the members of Congress in thePhilippines.The Congress then uses this fund for governmentprogramsthat can fund theprioritydevelopmentprogramsand government projects without going through the normal budgetary process or the Executivebranch. Its main purpose is to give legislators easy access to capital so that they can have projects that can improve their constituents however be noted that it involves peoples money.The current Aquino administration, through the General Appropriations Act of 2011, explicitly stated amounts received per legislator:a.) Congressmen P40 million for hard projects and P30 million for soft projectsb.) Senators P200 million P100 million for hard and soft projects,c.) Vice President P200 million P100 million for hard and soft projects

Under Aquinos term, legislators were now allowed to identify projects outside their districts, provided that the consent of the district representative of the place would be acquired. Additonally, their PDAF included to encompass that of the Malampaya Funds by virtue of PD 910 and Presidential Social Fund under PD 1869. Constitutionality of both the congressional and presidential pork Barrel were assailed based on: separation of powers non-delegability of legislative power checks and balances accountability local autonomyISSUES:1. Whether or not the Congressional Pork Barrel is unconstitutional 2. Whether or not the phrases (under Section 8 of PD 910relating 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:1. Yes. PDAF violated the principle of separation of powers for legislators were given authority which are within the executive sphere. Undue delegation of legislative power was also present as individual members were allowed to exercise power to appropriate the funds rendered to them. Post-enactment roles in the budget implementation made it hard for them to be disinterested partiesconstituting violations of check and valances as well as accountability. Local autonomy was also infringed since PDAF conflicts with the functions of Local Development Councils.

2. Unconstitutional in the sense that there was undue delegation of legislative powerby not giving definite definition of priority infrastructure project.

Sec 8 of PD 910:and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power. Sec 12 of PD 1869:"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.The limits of the president however was not sufficiently determined in relation to the purpose for which the Malampaya Fund may be used, thus unconstitutional. It gave the President full discretionary power to use the Presidential Social Fund for any infrastructure project it wishes to prioritize.