case pdaf 2

7/18/2019 CASE PDAF 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/case-pdaf-2 1/30

CASE 2013-0027: SC DECISION ON THEPDAF CASE: GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDAB. BELGICA, JOSE M. VILLEGAS, JR.,

JOSE L. GONZALEZ, REUBEN M. ABANTE, AND UINTIN PAREDES SANDIEGO, PETITIONERS, -VERSUS-HONORABLE E!ECUTIVE SECRETAR"PAUITO N. OCHOA, JR., SECRETAR"OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENTFLORENCIO B. ABAD, NATIONAL

TREASURER ROSALIA V. DE LEON,SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES,REPRESENTED B" FRAN#LIN M.DRILON M HIS CAPACIT" AS SENATEPRESIDENT, AND HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES, REPRESENTED B" FELICIANO S. BELMONTE, JR. IN HIS

CAPACIT" AS SPEA#ER OF THEHOUSE, RESPONDENTS.$ SOCIALJUSTICE SOCIET" SJS% PRESIDENTSAMSON S. ALCANTARA, PETITIONER,-VERSUS- HONORABLE FRAN#LIN M.DRILON, IN HIS CAPACIT" AS SENATEPRESIDENT, AND HONORABLE

FELICIANO S. BELMONTE, JR., M HISCAPACIT" AS SPEA#ER OF THE HOUSEOF REPRESENTATIVES,RESPONDENTS.$ PEDRITO M.NEPOMUCENO, FORMER MA"OR-BOAC, MARINDUUE, FORMER

7/18/2019 CASE PDAF 2


PROVINCIAL BOARD MEMBER-PROVINCE OF MARINDUUE,PETITIONER, -VERSUS- PRESIDENT

BENIGNO SIMEON C. AUINO ILI ANDSECRETAR" FLORENCIO &BUTCH' ABAD, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET ANDMANAGEMENT, RESPONDENTS. (G.R.NOS. G.R. NO. 20)*++$ G.R. NO. 20)3

AND G.R. NO. 202*1, 1 NOVEMBER2013, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.% SUBJECT:

LEGALIT" OF THE POR# BARRELS"STEM% (BRIEF TITLE: BELGICA ET AL VS. HON. E!EC. SECRETAR"%.

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES — Leave a comment

December 1 !"1#

CASE 2013-0027: SC DECISION ON THE PDAF CASE: GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B.

BELGICA, JOSE M. VILLEGAS, JR., JOSE L. GONZALEZ, REUBEN M. ABANTE, AND

UINTIN PAREDES SAN DIEGO, PETITIONERS, -VERSUS- HONORABLE E!ECUTIVE

SECRETAR" PAUITO N. OCHOA, JR., SECRETAR" OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT

FLORENCIO B. ABAD, NATIONAL TREASURER ROSALIA V. DE LEON, SENATE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED B" FRAN#LIN M. DRILON M HIS CAPACIT" AS

SENATE PRESIDENT, AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

REPRESENTED B" FELICIANO S. BELMONTE, JR. IN HIS CAPACIT" AS SPEA#ER OF

THE HOUSE, RESPONDENTS.$ SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIET" SJS% PRESIDENT SAMSON

S. ALCANTARA, PETITIONER, -VERSUS- HONORABLE FRAN#LIN M. DRILON, IN HIS

CAPACIT" AS SENATE PRESIDENT, AND HONORABLE FELICIANO S. BELMONTE,

JR., M HIS CAPACIT" AS SPEA#ER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

RESPONDENTS.$ PEDRITO M. NEPOMUCENO, FORMER MA"OR-BOAC,

MARINDUUE, FORMER PROVINCIAL BOARD MEMBER -PROVINCE OF

MARINDUUE, PETITIONER, -VERSUS- PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON C.

AUINO ILI AND SECRETAR" FLORENCIO &BUTCH' ABAD, DEPARTMENT OF

BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, RESPONDENTS. (G.R. NO.G.R. NO. 20)*++$ G.R.

NO. 20)3 AND G.R. NO. 202*1, 1 NOVEMBER 2013, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.%

http://jabbulao.com/category/latest-supreme-court-cases/


http://jabbulao.com/2013/12/01/case-2013-0027-sc-decision-on-the-pdaf-case-g-r-no-g-r-no-209251-19-november-2013-perlas-bernabe-j-subject-legality-of-the-pork-barrel-system-brief-title-belgica-et-al-vs-hon-exec-se/#respond


http://jabbulao.com/2013/12/01/case-2013-0027-sc-decision-on-the-pdaf-case-g-r-no-g-r-no-209251-19-november-2013-perlas-bernabe-j-subject-legality-of-the-pork-barrel-system-brief-title-belgica-et-al-vs-hon-exec-se/#respond

7/18/2019 CASE PDAF 2


SUBJECT: LEGALIT" OF THE POR# BARREL S"STEM% (BRIEF TITLE: BELGICA ET AL

VS. HON. E!EC. SECRETAR"%.

DISPOSITIVE:

&HEREFORE t$e %etition& are PARTL" GRANTED' (n vie) o* t$e con&titutional

violation& di&cu&&ed in t$i& Deci&ion t$e Court $ereb+ declare& a& UNCONSTITUTIONAL:

,a- t$e entire !"1# PDAF Article. ,b- all le/al %rovi&ion& o* %a&t and %re&ent Con/re&&ional

Por0 arrel La)& &uc$ a& t$e %reviou& PDAF and CDF Article& and t$e variou&

Con/re&&ional (n&ertion& )$ic$ aut$ori2e3d le/i&lator& 4 )$et$er individuall+ or

collectivel+ or/ani2ed into committee& 4 to intervene a&&ume or %artici%ate in an+ o* t$e

variou& %o&t5enactment &ta/e& o* t$e bud/et e6ecution &uc$ a& but not limited to t$e

area& o* %ro7ect identi8cation modi8cation and revi&ion o* %ro7ect identi8cation *undrelea&e and3or *und reali/nment unrelated to t$e %o)er o* con/re&&ional over&i/$t. ,c- all

le/al %rovi&ion& o* %a&t and %re&ent Con/re&&ional Por0 arrel La)& &uc$ a& t$e %reviou&

PDAF and CDF Article& and t$e variou& Con/re&&ional (n&ertion& )$ic$con*er3red

%er&onal lum%5&um allocation& to le/i&lator& *rom )$ic$ t$e+ are able to *und &%eci8c

%ro7ect& )$ic$ t$e+ t$em&elve& determine. ,d - all in*ormal %ractice& o* &imilar im%ort and

e9ect )$ic$ t$e Court &imilarl+ deem& to be act& o* /rave abu&e o* di&cretion amountin/

to lac0 or e6ce&& o* 7uri&diction. and ,e- t$e %$ra&e& ,1- and *or &uc$ ot$er %ur%o&e& a&

ma+ be $erea*ter directed b+ t$e Pre&ident; under Section < o* Pre&idential Decree =o'

>1" and ,!- to 8nance t$e %riorit+ in*ra&tructure develo%ment %ro7ect&; under Section

1! o* Pre&idential Decree =o' 1<?> a& amended b+ Pre&idential Decree =o' 1>># *or bot$

*ailin/ t$e &u@cient &tandard te&t in violation o* t$e %rinci%le o* non5dele/abilit+ o*

le/i&lative %o)er'

Accordin/l+ t$e Court& tem%orar+ in7unction dated Se%tember 1" !"1# i& $ereb+

declared to bePERMANENT' T$u& t$e di&bur&ement3relea&e o* t$e remainin/ PDAF *und&

allocated *or t$e +ear !"1# a& )ell a& *or all %reviou& +ear& and t$e *und& &ourced *rom

,1- t$e Malam%a+a Fund& under t$e %$ra&e and *or &uc$ ot$er %ur%o&e& a& ma+ be

$erea*ter directed b+ t$e Pre&ident; %ur&uant to Section < o* Pre&idential Decree =o' >1"and ,!- t$e Pre&idential Social Fund under t$e %$ra&e to 8nance t$e %riorit+

in*ra&tructure develo%ment %ro7ect&; %ur&uant to Section 1! o* Pre&idential Decree =o'

1<?> a& amended b+ Pre&idential Decree =o' 1>># )$ic$ are at t$e time t$i& Deci&ion i&

%romul/ated not covered b+ =otice o* Ca&$ Allocation& ,=CA&- but onl+ b+ S%ecial

Allotment Relea&e Order& ,SARO&- )$et$er obli/ated or not are $ereb+ ENJOINED' T$e

remainin/ PDAF *und& covered b+ t$i& %ermanent in7unction &$all not be

7/18/2019 CASE PDAF 2


di&bur&ed3relea&ed but in&tead reverted to t$e una%%ro%riated &ur%lu& o* t$e /eneral

*und )$ile t$e *und& under t$e Malam%a+a Fund& and t$e Pre&idential Social Fund &$all

remain t$erein to be utili2ed *or t$eir re&%ective &%ecial %ur%o&e& not ot$er)i&e declared

a& uncon&titutional'

On t$e ot$er $and due to im%ro%er recour&e and lac0 o* %ro%er &ub&tantiation t$e Court

$ereb+DENIES %etitioner& %ra+er &ee0in/ t$at t$e E6ecutive Secretar+ and3or t$e

De%artment o* ud/et and Mana/ement be ordered to %rovide t$e %ublic and t$e

Commi&&ion on Audit com%lete li&t&3&c$edule& or detailed re%ort& related to t$e

availment& and utili2ation o* t$e *und& &ub7ect o* t$e&e ca&e&' Petitioner& acce&& to

o@cial document& alread+ available and o* %ublic record )$ic$ are related to t$e&e *und&

mu&t $o)ever not be %ro$ibited but merel+ &ub7ected to t$e cu&todian& rea&onable

re/ulation& or an+ valid &tatutor+ %ro$ibition on t$e &ame' T$i& denial i& )it$out %re7udice

to a %ro%er mandamu& ca&e )$ic$ t$e+ or t$e Commi&&ion on Audit ma+ c$oo&e to%ur&ue t$rou/$ a &e%arate %etition'

T$e Court al&o DENIES %etitioner&B %ra+er to order t$e inclu&ion o* t$e *und& &ub7ect o*

t$e&e ca&e& in t$e bud/etar+ deliberation& o* Con/re&& a& t$e &ame i& a matter le*t to t$e

%rero/ative o* t$e %olitical branc$e& o* /overnment'

Finall+ t$e Court $ereb+ DIRECTS all %ro&ecutorial or/an& o* t$e /overnment to )it$in

t$e bound& o* rea&onable di&%atc$ inve&ti/ate and accordin/l+ %ro&ecute all /overnment

o@cial& and3or %rivate individual& *or %o&&ible criminal o9en&e& related to t$e irre/ular

im%ro%er and3or unla)*ul di&bur&ement3utili2ation o* all *und& under t$e Por0 arrel

S+&tem'

T$i& Deci&ion i& immediatel+ e6ecutor+ but %ro&%ective in e9ect'

SO ORDERED.'

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

HAT IS THE DEFINITION OF POR# BARREL

POR# BARREL S"STEM IS THE COLLECTIVE BOD" OF RULES AND PRACTICESTHAT GOVERN THE MANNER B" HICH LUMP-SUM, DISCRETIONAR" FUNDS,

PRIMARIL" INTENDED FOR LOCAL PROJECTS, ARE UTILIZED THROUGH THE

RESPECTIVE PARTICIPATIONS OF THE LEGISLATIVE AND E!ECUTIVE BRANCHES

OF GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING ITS MEMBERS.

7/18/2019 CASE PDAF 2


HAT ARE THE #INDS OF DISCRETIONAR" FUNDS INVOLVED IN POR# BARREL

S"STEM

THERE ARE TO #INDS:

FIRST, THERE IS THE CONGRESSIONAL POR# BARREL HICH IS A #IND OF LUMP-

SUM, DISCRETIONAR" FUND HEREIN LEGISLATORS, EITHER INDIVIDUALL" OR

COLLECTIVEL" ORGANIZED INTO COMMITTEES, ARE ABLE TO EFFECTIVEL"

CONTROL CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE FUNDS UTILIZATION THROUGH VARIOUS

POST-ENACTMENT MEASURES AND/OR PRACTICES.

SECOND, THERE IS THE PRESIDENTIAL POR# BARREL HICH IS A #IND OF LUMP-

SUM, DISCRETIONAR" FUND HICH ALLOS THE PRESIDENT TO DETERMINETHE MANNER OF ITS UTILIZATION.

HAT IS THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF POERS

THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF POERS REFERS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL

DEMARCATION OF THE THREE FUNDAMENTAL POERS OF GOVERNMENT.

TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, THROUGH CONGRESS, BELONGS

THE POER TO MA#E LAS$ TO THE E!ECUTIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT,

THROUGH THE PRESIDENT, BELONGS THE POER TO ENFORCE LAS$ AND TO

THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, THROUGH THE COURT, BELONGS THE

POER TO INTERPRET LAS.

BECAUSE THE THREE GREAT POERS HAVE BEEN, B" CONSTITUTIONAL DESIGN,

ORDAINED IN THIS RESPECT, E4ACH DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT HAS

E!CLUSIVE COGNIZANCE OF MATTERS ITHIN ITS JURISDICTION, AND IS

SUPREME ITHIN ITS ON SPHERE.

THUS, THE LEGISLATURE HAS NO AUTHORIT" TO E!ECUTE OR CONSTRUE THE

LA, THE E!ECUTIVE HAS NO AUTHORIT" TO MA#E OR CONSTRUE THE LA,

AND THE JUDICIAR" HAS NO POER TO MA#E OR E!ECUTE THE LA.

7/18/2019 CASE PDAF 2


AFTER APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, HAT HAPPENS TO

THE LA-MA#ING ROLE OF CONGRESS

CONGRESS5 LA-MA#ING ROLE NECESSARIL" COMES TO AN END AND FROM

THERE THE E!ECUTIVE5S ROLE OF IMPLEMENTING THE NATIONAL BUDGET

BEGINS.

SO AS NOT TO BLUR THE CONSTITUTIONAL BOUNDARIES BETEEN THEM,

CONGRESS MUST NOT CONCERN ITSELF ITH DETAILS FOR IMPLEMENTATION B"

THE E!ECUTIVE.

BUT CAN CONGRESS STILL E!ERCISE OVERSIGHT FUNCTION EVEN AFTER THE

LA AS PASSED

"ES. BUT CONGRESS5 ROLE MUST BE CONFINED TO MERE OVERSIGHT. AN"

POSTENACTMENT-MEASURE ALLOING LEGISLATOR PARTICIPATION BE"OND

OVERSIGHT IS BEREFT OF AN" CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS AND HENCE,

TANTAMOUNT TO IMPERMISSIBLE INTERFERENCE AND/OR ASSUMPTION OF

E!ECUTIVE FUNCTIONS.

HAT IS THE SCOPE OF ITS OVERSIGHT FUNCTION

CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT MUST BE CONFINED TO THE FOLLOING:

(1% SCRUTIN" BASED PRIMARIL" ON CONGRESS5 POER OF APPROPRIATION

AND THE BUDGET HEARINGS CONDUCTED IN CONNECTION ITH IT, ITS POER

TO AS# HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS TO APPEAR BEFORE AND BE HEARD B" EITHER

OF ITS HOUSES ON AN" MATTER PERTAINING TO THEIR DEPARTMENTS AND ITS

POER OF CONFIRMATION$ AND

(2% INVESTIGATION AND MONITORING OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LAS

PURSUANT TO THE POER OF CONGRESS TO CONDUCT INUIRIES IN AID OF

LEGISLATION.

AN" ACTION OR STEP BE"OND THAT ILL UNDERMINE THE SEPARATION OF

POERS GUARANTEED B" THE CONSTITUTION.

7/18/2019 CASE PDAF 2


THE 2013 PDAF GIVES AUTHORIT" TO LEGISLATORS TO IMPLEMENT CERTAIN

PROVISIONS OF THE BUDGET. IS IT LEGAL

IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT IS VIOLATIVE OF THE SEPARATION OF

POERS PRINCIPLE.

&T68, 9; <== >6? 9;?@@ ;?<88, >6? C;> 6?;? ?=<;?8 >6? 2013 PDAF

A;>=? <8 ?== <8 <== >6?; ;88 9 =< 66 8=<;= <== =?@8=<>;8 >

?= < 9; 9 8>-?<>?> <>6;> >6? =??><> ;

?9;??> 9 >6? @?>, ;?=<>? > @;?88<= ?;8@6>, <8 =<>?

9 >6? 8?<;<> 9 ?;8 ;=? < >68 8>>><=.'

HO ABOUT THE INFORMAL PRACTICES OF PARTICIPATING IN THE E!ECUTION

OF THE BUDGET

THE" MUST BE DEEMED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND ACCORDED THE

SAME UNCONSTITUTIONAL TREATMENT.

&C;==<; >6?;?>, 9;<= ;<>?8, >6;@6 66 =?@8=<>;8 6<?

?K?>?= >;? > >6? ;?; 6<8?8 9 @?> ??>, 8> ?

??? <8 <>8 9 @;<? <8? 9 8;?> <>@ > =< ; ??88 9

;8> <, 6??, <;? >6? 8<? 8>>><= >;?<>?>.

H"

BECAUSE THE E!ECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OULD BE DEPRIVED OF HAT THE

CONSTITUTION HAS VESTED AS ITS ON.

HO E!ERCISES LEGISLATIVE POER

ONL" CONGRESS.

THAT POER SHALL BE VESTED IN THE CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES HICH

SHALL CONSIST OF A SENATE AND A HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, E!CEPT TO

7/18/2019 CASE PDAF 2


THE E!TENT RESERVED TO THE PEOPLE B" THE PROVISION ON INITIATIVE AND

REFERENDUM.

BASED ON THIS PROVISION, IT IS CLEAR THAT ONL" CONGRESS, ACTING AS A

BICAMERAL BOD", AND THE PEOPLE, THROUGH THE PROCESS OF INITIATIVE AND

REFERENDUM, MA" CONSTITUTIONALL" IELD LEGISLATIVE POER AND NO

OTHER.

THIS PREMISE EMBODIES THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-DELEGABILIT" OF LEGISLATIVE

POER.

IS THERE AN" E!CEPTION TO THE NON-DELEGABILIT" OF LEGISLATIVE POER

"ES. THE" ARE:

( A% DELEGATED LEGISLATIVE POER TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS HICH, B"

IMMEMORIAL PRACTICE, ARE ALLOED TO LEGISLATE ON PUREL" LOCAL

MATTERS$ AND

(B% CONSTITUTIONALL"-GRAFTED E!CEPTIONS SUCH AS THE AUTHORIT" OF THE

PRESIDENT TO, B" LA, E!ERCISE POERS NECESSAR" AND PROPER TO CARR"

OUT A DECLARED NATIONAL POLIC" IN TIMES OF AR OR OTHER NATIONAL

EMERGENC", OR FI! ITHIN SPECIFIED LIMITS, AND SUBJECT TO SUCH

LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS AS CONGRESS MA" IMPOSE, TARIFF RATES,

IMPORT AND E!PORT UOTAS, TONNAGE AND HARFAGE DUES, AND OTHER

DUTIES OR IMPOSTS ITHIN THE FRAMEOR# OF THE NATIONAL

DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM OF THE GOVERNMENT.

DOES THE 2013 PDAF VIOLATE THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-DELEGABILIT" OF

LEGISLATIVE POER

"ES. BECAUSE THE 2013 PDAF ARTICLE CONFERS POST-ENACTMENT

IDENTIFICATION AUTHORIT" TO INDIVIDUAL LEGISLATORS.

SAID LEGISLATORS ARE EFFECTIVEL" ALLOED TO INDIVIDUALL" E!ERCISE THE

POER OF APPROPRIATION, HICH AS SETTLED IN PHILCONSA IS LODGED IN

CONGRESS.

7/18/2019 CASE PDAF 2


&T6<> >6? ?; > <;;<>? 8> ? ??;8? = >6;@6 =?@8=<> 8

=?<; 9; S?> 2(1%, A;>=? VI 9 >6? 1)7 C8>>> 66 8><>?8 >6<>:

N ? 86<== ? < > 9 >6? T;?<8; ??> ;8<? 9 <

<;;<> <? =<. T ?;8>< 6<> 8>>>?8 < <> 9

<;;<>, >6? C;>, Bengzon v. Secretary of Justice and Insular

Auditor (Bengzon%, 6?= >6<> >6? ?; 9 <;;<> =?8 (a% >6? 8?>>@

<<;> =< 9 < ?;>< 8 9; >6? = ;??? 9; (b% < 8?Q?

;8?. E88?><==, ?; >6? 2013 PDAF A;>=?, <= =?@8=<>;8 <;?

@? < ?;8<= =-8 9 9; 66 >6? <;? <=? > ><>? (a% 6

6 9; 86 9 = @ > (b% < 8?Q ;?> ; ??Q<; >6<> >6?

>6?8?=?8 <=8 ?>?;?. A8 >6?8? > (2% <>8 ;8? >6? ??;8? 9 >6?

?; 9 <;;<> <8 ?8;? Bengzon, < @? >6<> >6? 2013 PDAFA;>=? <>6;?8 <= =?@8=<>;8 > ?;9; >6? 8<?, >?=, 8<

=?@8=<>;8 6<? ?? 9?;;? >6? ?; > =?@8=<>? 66 >6? C8>>>

?8 >, 6??;, <==.'

SINCE IT VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-DELEGABILIT" OF LEGISLATIVE

POER HO IS THE LEGALIT" OF THE 2013 PDAF CHARACTERIZED

THE 2013 PDAF AND ALL OTHER FORMS OF CONGRESSIONAL POR# BARREL

HICH CONTAIN SIMILAR LEGISLATIVE IDENTIFICATION FEATURE IS

UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

&T68, ??@ >6 >6? ;=? 9 -?=?@<=> 9 =?@8=<>? ?;, >6?

C;> 6?;? ?=<;?8 >6? 2013 PDAF A;>=?, <8 ?== <8 <== >6?; 9;8 9

C@;?88<= P; B<;;?= 66 >< >6? 8=<; =?@8=<>? ?>Q<>

9?<>;? <8 6?;? 888?, <8 8>>><=.'

ARE THE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT ABSOLUTEL" INDEPENDENT OFEACH OTHER

NO.

7/18/2019 CASE PDAF 2


THE CONSTITUTION HAS ALSO PROVIDED FOR AN ELABORATE S"STEM OF

CHEC#S AND BALANCES TO SECURE COORDINATION IN THE OR#INGS OF THE

VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT.

GIVE AN E!AMPLE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL CHEC# AND BALANCE.

THE PRESIDENTS POER TO VETO AN ITEM RITTEN INTO AN APPROPRIATION,

REVENUE OR TARIFF BILL SUBMITTED TO HIM B" CONGRESS FOR APPROVAL

THROUGH A PROCESS #NON AS BILL PRESENTMENT.

HAT IS THE BASIS FOR THE PRESIDENTS VETO POER

IT IS FOUND IN SECTION 27(2%, ARTICLE VI OF THE 1)7 CONSTITUTION HICHREADS AS FOLLOS:

&S?. 27. .

(2% T6? P;?8?> 86<== 6<? >6? ?; > ?> < <;>=<; >? ; >?8

< <;;<>, ;???, ; ><;K ==, > >6? ?> 86<== > <K?> >6? >? ;

>?8 > 66 6? ?8 > ?>.'

BUT B" E!ERCISING HIS VETO POER IS THE PRESIDENT ALSO PERFORMING

LA-MA#ING FUNCTION

"ES.

IT IS A CHEC# ON THE LEGISLATURE.

&T6? 9;?; O;@< A> < >6? ;?8?> C8>>> 9 >6? P6=?8 <?

>6? C6?9 E?>? < >?@;<= <;> 9 >6? =<-<@ ?;. H8 8<;<= 9

< ==, = <8 < ?>, 8 ?88?><== < =?@8=<>? <>. T6? ?8>8

;?8?>? > >6? 9 >6? C6?9 E?>? <;? ;?8?= >6? 8<? <8 >68?

>6? =?@8=<>;? 8> ?>?;? <88@ < ==, ??> >6<> 68 == ? <

;<?; > 9 ?.

7/18/2019 CASE PDAF 2


T6? C8>>> 8 < =><> >6? ?; 9 >6? =?@8=<>? ?<;>?> 9

>6? @?;?>, > >68 ;?8?> > 8 < @;<> 9 ?; > >6? ??>?

?<;>?>. T6? L?@8=<>;? 6<8 >6? <;<>? ?; > ?<> =<8$ >6? C6?9

E?>? 6<8 >6? ?@<>? ?; >6? 8>>><= ??;8? 9 66 6?

< ?9?<> >6? == 9 >6? L?@8=<>;?.'

HO ILL THE PRESIDENT E!ERCISE HIS VETO POER FUNCTION

HE MA" NOT BE CONFINED TO RULES OF STRICT CONSTRUCTION OR HAMPERED

B" THE UNISE INTERFERENCE OF THE JUDICIAR".

&T6? ;>8 == =@? ??; >??> 9<; 9 >6? 8>>><=> 9 <?> >6? 8<? <?;4 <8 >6? == ;?8? >6? 8>>><=> 9 < <>

<8 ;@<== <88? >6? L?@8=<>;?.'

HAT IS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PRESIDENTS VETO-POER

THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PRESIDENT5S ITEM-VETO POER RESTS ON A

VARIET" OF POLIC" GOALS SUCH AS TO PREVENT LOG-ROLLING LEGISLATION,

IMPOSE FISCAL RESTRICTIONS ON THE LEGISLATURE, AS ELL AS TO FORTIF"

THE E!ECUTIVE BRANCH5S ROLE IN THE BUDGETAR" PROCESS.'

&I Iigration and Naturalization Service v. C!ad!a, >6? US S;?? C;>

6<;<>?;? >6? P;?8?>58 >?-?; <8 < 8<=><; 6? >6?

=?@8=<>? , <==<>? > @<; >6? > <@<8> >6? ?K?>8 9

9<>8, ;?><, ; 9 < =8? 9;?= > >6? = @, 66

< 6<? > ?? < <;> 9 >6<> $ 6;<8? K?;?>=, > 8

?<> > ;?<8? >6? 6<?8 9<; 9 >6? > <@<8> >6? <88@

9 < =<8, >6;@6 6<8>?, <?;>??, ; ?8@.'

FOR THE PRESIDENT TO E!ERCISE HIS ITEM-VETO POER HAT IS NECESSAR"

THERE MUST E!IST A PROPER &ITEM' HICH MA" BE THE OBJECT OF THE VETO.

HAT IS AN &ITEM' IN A BILL OR APPROPRIATION

7/18/2019 CASE PDAF 2


AN ITEM, AS DEFINED IN THE FIELD OF APPROPRIATIONS, PERTAINS TO THE

PARTICULARS, THE DETAILS, THE DISTINCT AND SEVERABLE PARTS OF THE

APPROPRIATION OR OF THE BILL.

&I >6? <8? 9 Bengzon v. Secretary of Justice of t!e P!ili""ine Islands, >6? US

S;?? C;> 6<;<>?;? < >? 9 <;;<> <8 9==8:

A >? 9 < <;;<> == 8= ?<8 < >? 66, >8?=9, 8 <

8?Q <;;<> 9 ?, > 8? @??;<= ;8 9 =< 66

6<?8 > ? > > < <;;<> ==. (E6<8?8 8=?%'

HAT IS AN IMPORTANT CHARACTERISTIC OF AN APPROPRIATION BILL

IT MUST BE A SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION OF MONE" AND NOT A GENERAL

PROVISION PROVIDING FOR PARAMETERS OF APPROPRIATION

H" MUST IT BE A SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION OF MONE"

TO ENSURE THAT THE PRESIDENT IS ABLE TO E!ERCISE HIS POER OF ITEM

VETO.

&O >68 ;?8?, > < ? =? >6<> < <;;<> ==, > ?8;? >6<>

>6? P;?8?> < ? <=? > ??;8? 68 ?; 9 >? ?>, 8> ><

8?Q <;;<>8 9 ? < > = @??;<=

;88 66 ;? 9; <;<?>?;8 9 <;;<>.'

ASIDE FROM BEING A SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION OF MONE" HAT FURTHER

CHARACTERIZES AN APPROPRIATION BILL

IT MUST BE CHARACTERIZED B" SINGULAR CORRESPONDENCE.

THIS MEANS IT MUST BE AN ALLOCATION FOR A SPECIFIED SINGULAR AMOUNT

FOR A SPECIFIED SINGULAR PURPOSE.

H" MUST IT BE SO

7/18/2019 CASE PDAF 2


SO THE PRESIDENT ILL DISCERNABL" VETO THE SAME.

&F;>6?;, > 8 8@Q<> > > > >6<> < >? 9 <;;<> 8> ? <

>? 6<;<>?;? 8@=<; ;;?8?? ?<@ < <==<> 9 <

8?Q? 8@=<; <> 9; < 8?Q? 8@=<; ;8?, >6?;8? <8

< =?->?. T68 >;?<>?> > = <==8 >6? >? > ? 88>?> >6 >8

?Q> <8 < 8?Q <;;<> 9 ? > <=8 ?8;?8 >6<> >6?

P;?8?> < 8?;= ?> >6? 8<?.'

ARE THE CALAMIT" FUND, CONTINGENT FUND AND THE INTELLIGENCE FUND

CONSIDERED AS LINE-ITEM APPROPRIATIONS

"ES BECAUSE THE" STATE A SPECIFIED AMOUNT FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE.

MA" AN APPROPRIATION BE VALIDL" APPORTIONED INTO COMPONENT

PERCENTAGES

"ES, BUT EACH PERCENTAGE OR VALUE MUST BE ALLOCATED FOR ITS ON

CORRESPONDING PURPOSE.

&L?8?, > 8> ? 8?;? >6<> < <;;<> < ? <==

<;>? > ?> ?;?><@?8 ; <=?8$ 6??;, > 8 ;<= >6<>

?<6 ?;?><@? ; <=? 8> ? <==<>? 9; >8 ;;?8@ ;8?

9; 86 ?> > ? 8?;? <8 < ;?; =?->?.'

MA" AN APPROPRIATIOMN HAVE SEVERAL RELATED PURPOSES

"ES PROVIDED THAT THESE PURPOSES ARE B" ACCOUNTING AND BUDGETING

PURPOSES CAN BE CONSIDERED AS ONE PURPOSE.

ONE E!AMPLE IS THE MOOE (MAINTENANCE AND OTHER OPERATING

E!PENSES%.

&M;??;, <8 J8>? C<; ;;?>= >? >, < <=

7/18/2019 CASE PDAF 2


<;;<> < ?? 6<? 8??;<= ;?=<>? ;8?8 >6<> <;? <>@

< @?>@ ;<>? 8?;? <8 ? ;8?, e.g., MOOE (<>?<?

< >6?; ?;<>@ ??8?8%, 66 <8? >6? ;?=<>? ;8?8 86<== ?

??? 8?>= 8?Q 9; >6? ??;8? 9 >6?

P;?8?>58 >? ?> ?;.'

HO ABOUT SPECIAL PURPOSE FUNDS AND DISCRETIONAR" FUNDS, ARE THE"

VALID APPROPRIATIONS

"ES, AS LONG AS THE" FOLLO THE RULE ON SINGULAR CORRESPONDENCE

AND SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF LA AS STATED BELO.

REGARDING SPECIAL PURPOSE FUNDS, SECTION 2*(%, ARTICLE VI OF THE 1)7CONSTITUTION REUIRES THAT THE SPECIAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL SHALL:

1. <. SPECIF" THE PURPOSE FOR HICH IT IS INTENDED, AND$

1. . SHALL BE SUPPORTED B" FUNDS ACTUALL" AVAILABLE AS CERTIFIED

B" THE NATIONAL TREASURER, OR TO BE RAISED B" A CORRESPONDING

REVENUE PROPOSAL THEREIN.

REGARDING DISCRETIONAR" FUNDS, SECTION 2*(+%, ARTICLE VI OF THE 1)7

CONSTITUTION REUIRES THAT SAID FUNDS SHALL:

1. A. BE DISBURSED ONL" FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES TO BE SUPPORTED B"

APPROPRIATE VOUCHERS AND$

1. B. SUBJECT TO SUCH GUIDELINES AS MA" BE PRESCRIBED B" LA.

HO ABOUT APPROPRIATIONS HICH MEREL" PROVIDE FOR A SINGULAR LUMP-SUM AMOUNT TO BE TAPPED AS A SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR MULTIPLE

PURPOSES. ARE THESE IN ACCORD ITH THE CONSTITUTION

NO, SINCE SUCH APPROPRIATION T"PE NECESSITATES THE FURTHER

DETERMINATION OF BOTH THE ACTUAL AMOUNT TO BE E!PENDED AND THE

ACTUAL PURPOSE OF THE APPROPRIATION.

7/18/2019 CASE PDAF 2


THE PRESIDENT HAS NO PROPER LINE-ITEM TO VETO.

ALSO, THE IMPLEMENTING AGENC" OULD STILL HAVE TO DETERMINE, BOTH

THE ACTUAL AMOUNT TO BE E!PENDED AND THE ACTUAL PURPOSE OF THE

APPROPRIATION.

&I >;<8>, 6<> ?8 8>>><= Q;> <;? <;;<>8 66

?;?= ;? 9; < 8@=<; =-8 <> > ? ><? <8 < 8;? 9

9@ 9; =>=? ;8?8. S? 86 <;;<> >? ??88><>?8 >6?

9;>6?; ?>?;<> 9 >6 >6? <><= <> > ? ??? < >6? <><=

;8? 9 >6? <;;<> 66 8> 8>== ? 68? 9; >6? =>=?

;8?8 8><>? >6? =<, > <> ? 8< >6<> >6? <;;<> =< <=;?<<>?8 < 8?Q <;;<> 9 ? < 6??, >6> < ;?; =?-

>? 66 >6? P;?8?> < ?>. A8 < ;<><= ;?8=>, >6? P;?8?> =

>6? ? 9<? >6 >6? ;?<?> 9

?>6?; ?>@ >6? ?>;? <;;<> 9 6? Q8 8? 9 >8 ;8?8 <8>?9=

; ?8;<=?, ; <;@ >6? ?>;? <;;<> 8 <8 > > 6?; 8?

9 >8 =?@><>? ;8?8. F<==, > < > ? <88 > 8><>?

>6<> 86 <;;<@??> <=8 ;<8?8 -?=?@<=> 88?8 8?;@ >6<> >6?

=??>@ <>6;> = 8>== 6<? > ?>?;?, <@<, >6 >6? <><=

<> > ? ??? < >6? <><= ;8? 9 >6? <;;<>.

S? >6? 9;?@@ ?>?;<>8 8>>>? >6? >?@;<= <8?>8 9 >6? ?;

> <;;<>?, >6? =??>@ <>6;> =, ?K?>, ? ??;8@

=?@8=<>? ;?;@<>?8 =<> 9 >6? ;=? 9 -?=?@<=>.'

THE PDAF LUMP-SUM AMOUNT OF P2.7 BILLION AS A FUNDING SOURCE

ALLOTTED FOR MULTIPLE PURPOSES OF SPENDING, I.#., SCHOLARSHIPS,

MEDICAL MISSIONS, ASSISTANCE TO INDIGENTS, PRESERVATION OF HISTORICALMATERIALS, CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS, FLOOD CONTROL, ETC. IS THIS

CONSTITUTIONAL

NO. BECAUSE IT LEAVES THE ACTUAL AMOUNTS AND PURPOSES OF THE

APPROPRIATION FOR FURTHER DETERMINATION AND, THEREFORE, DOES NOT

7/18/2019 CASE PDAF 2


READIL" INDICATE A DISCERNIBLE ITEM HICH MA" BE SUBJECT TO THE

PRESIDENT5S POER OF ITEM VETO.

&T68 8?> >?8 >6<> >6? <;;<> =< =?<?8 >6? <><= <>8 <

;8?8 9 >6? <;;<> 9; 9;>6?; ?>?;<> <, >6?;?9;?, ?8

> ;?<= <>? < 8?;=? >? 66 < ? 8?> > >6? P;?8?>58

?; 9 >? ?>.

I 9<>, >6? <><=> 8?, >6? 8<? =-8 @?>@ 86?? 6<8,

<8 >6? CA C6<;?;8 ;?=<8, =>?4 8><>? <>;8 9; ><@

;?=?<> <>< < 9;<> >6<> = < ;? 8>;@?>= <>@ >6?

>=<> 9 8< F8.21+ A;@=, 86? ;??8 >6? <> 9 <

=? =? @?> ; <> ?; ;8? ;@;<, <>> ; ;?>, <?; =??>@ <@?.

H??, ? 9 >6? ;?<88 <?-8><>?, >6? C;> Q8 >6? 2013 PDAF

A;>=?, <8 ?== <8 <== C@;?88<= P; B<;;?= L<8 9 8=<; ?;<>, > ?

8>>><=.'

RESPONDENTS ARGUE THAT PDAF APPROPRIATION PROVIDES FOR A GREATER

DEGREE OF FLE!IBILIT" TO ACCOUNT FOR FUTURE CONTINGENC". CAN THIS

NOT JUSTIF" THE PDAF

NO. SUCH JUSTIFICATION CANNOT BE AN E!CUSE TO DEFEAT HAT THE

CONSTITUTION REUIRES. UNCONSTITUTIONAL MEANDS DO NOT JUSTIF"

COMMENDABLE ENDS.

&T6<> 86 @?>@ 88>? ;?8 9; < @;?<>?; ?@;?? 9 ?=> >

<> 9; 9>;? >@??8 <> ? < ?8? > ?9?<> 6<> >6?

C8>>> ;?;?8. C=?<;=, >6? Q;8> < ?88?><= >;>6 9 >6? <>>?; 8 >6<>8>>><= ?<8 > 8>9 ?? ?<=? ?8.'

.

7/18/2019 CASE PDAF 2


&I> <> ? ?? >6<> 8> @?;?> <>8 <;? 8;? >6 =?

>?>8, <== @?<;? ><;8 >6? ?>>?;?> 9 >6? <> < >8 ?=?. B>

>6? <@<, > 8 ;><> > ;???; >68 ?>6<= ;=?: WT6? ? ?8

> 8>9 >6? ?<8.5 N <>>?; 6 =? < ;>6 9 <;<> >6?

;8? 9 < <>, > 9 >6? ?<8 > ? ?=? <=86@ > 8 8=

;;?=<=? >6 8>>><= <;<?>?;8, >6? > <> 8>== ? <==?.

T6? C;> <> 8> >; < = ?? < 8= =?> > <88. I> == >? >

6= >6? C8>>> < >8 ?86;? ;=?8. WT6? C8>>> 8>

??; ;?< 8;??. A== 8> > >6? <<>? 9 >68 =<. E??

8> > ? <==? > 8< >8 8>;?@>6 ; @;?? 9; ?; ?<8? >8

;?>>?.5

PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT CERTAIN FEATURES OF PDAF HAS AN ADVERSE

EFFECT ON CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT. ARE THE" CORRECT

"ES. THE CONDUCT OF OVERSIGHT OULD BE TAINTED AS LEGISLATORS HO

ARE VESTED ITH POST-ENACTMENT AUTHORIT" OULD BE CHEC#ING ON

ACTIVITIES IN HICH THE" THEMSELVES PARTICIPATE.

&T6? C;> <@;??8 >6 ?>>?;8 >6<> ?;>< 9?<>;?8 ??? 8?

9;8 9 C@;?88<= P; B<;;?=, <@ >6?;8 >6? 2013 PDAF A;>=?, 6<8

< ?K?> @;?88<= ?;8@6>. T6? 9<> >6<> <= =?@8=<>;8 <;?

@? 8>-?<>?> ;=?8 >6? =??><> 9 >6? @?> <?8 >

=> 9; >6? > ?? 8>?;?8>? 8?;?;8 6? 8;>@,

?8>@<>@ ; >;@ >6? =??><> 9 >6? <;;<> =<. T <

?;>< ?>?>, >6? > 9 ?;8@6> = ? ><>? <8 8< =?@8=<>;8,

6 <;? ?8>? >6 8>-?<>?> <>6;>, =, ?K?>, ? 6?@

<>>?8 66 >6? >6?8?=?8 <;><>?.'

IS POST-ENACTMENT AUTHORIZATION UNDER PDAF CONSTITUTIONAL

NO.

7/18/2019 CASE PDAF 2


THE POST-ENACTMENT AUTHORIZATION ALLOED UNDER PDAF IS AGAINST

SECTION 1, ARTICLE VI OF THE CONSTITUTION. THE LEGISLATORS OULD

NECESSARIL" BE ENGAGED IN ACTIVITIES FOR HICH THE" COULD BE MADE TO

APPEAR BEFORE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES TO ACCOUNT FOR THEIR

PARTICIPATOR" ACTS. APPEARING BEFORE THESE AGENCIES, THE" COULD TA#E

ADVANTAGE OF THEIR POSITION AS LEGISLATORS.

&A=8, > 8> ? >? > >6<> >68 ?; 8<? ?> 9 8>?<>?>

<>6;<> ;8 <9= 9 S?> 1, A;>=? VI 9 >6? 1)7 C8>>> 66

;?8 >6<>:

S?. 1. N S?<>; ; M??; 9 >6? H8? 9 R?;?8?><>?8 < ?;8<==

<?<; <8 8?= ?9;? < ;> 9 8>? ; ?9;? >6? E=?>;<= T;<=8,; <8-<= < >6?; <8>;<>? ?8.

N?>6?; 86<== 6?, ;?>= ; ;?>=, ? >?;?8>? Q<<== < >;<>

>6, ; < 9;<68? ; 8?<= ;=?@? @;<>? >6? G?;?>, ; <

88, <@?, ; 8>;?><=> >6?;?9, =@ < @?;?>-

? ; >;==? ;;<>, ; >8 88<;, ;@ 68 >?; 9 ?. H?

86<== > >?;?? < <>>?; ?9;? < ? 9 >6? G?;?> 9; 68

?<; ??Q> ; 6?;? 6? < ? <==? > <> <> 9 68

?.

(E6<88 8=?%

C=?<;=, <==@ =?@8=<>;8 > >?;?? >6? <;8 6<8?8 9 ;?>

=??><> < <>>?; ?9;? <>6?; ? 9 @?;?> ;??;8 >6?

88?>=? > ><@ ? <<><@? 9 >6?; ?.'

.

I 8, 89<; <8 >8 8>-?<>?> 9?<>;?8 =>? @;?88<= ?;8@6>< =<>? S?> 1, A;>=? VI 9 >6? 1)7 C8>>>, >68 <;@ =

<><=>, >6? 2013 PDAF A;>=? < >6?; 9;8 9 C@;?88<= P;

B<;;?= 9 8=<; <>;? <;? ??? <8 8>>><=.'

ONE PETITIONER SUBMITS THAT THE POR# BARREL S"STEM ENABLES

POLITICIANS TO PERPETUATE THEMSELVES IN POER IN CONTRAVENTION OF

7/18/2019 CASE PDAF 2


THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION ON POLITICAL D"NASTIES. IS THIS VIE

CORRECT

NO.

THE COURT FINDS THE ABOVE-STATED ARGUMENT TO BE LARGEL" SPECULATIVE

SINCE IT HAS NOT BEEN PROPERL" DEMONSTRATED HO THE POR# BARREL

S"STEM OULD BE ABLE TO PROPAGATE POLITICAL D"NASTIES.

PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL POR# BARREL GOES

AGAINST THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES ON LOCAL AUTONOM" SINCE IT

ALLOS DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVES, HO ARE NATIONAL OFFICERS, TO

SUBSTITUTE THEIR JUDGMENTS IN UTILIZING PUBLIC FUNDS FOR LOCALDEVELOPMENT. IS THIS CONTENTION CORRECT

"ES.

THE LEGISLATOR CAN B"PASS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT AND INITIATE

PROJECTS ON HIS ON. SUCH S"STEM CONTRIBUTES LITTLE TO OVERALL

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTRICT AND EA#ENS INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING

AND COORDINATION.

$P!ilconsa ?8;? >6? 1 CDF <8 < <>>?> > <? ?<= >6?

?<= < >6<> 4> 8 <=8 < ;?@> >6<> <= ??;8 9

C@;?88, 9<; ;? >6< >6? P;?8?> < >6?; @;?88<= ==?<@?8, <;?

=?= > ? =?@?<=? <> >6? ??8 9 >6?; ;?8?>? 8>>?>8 <

>6? ;;> > ? @? ?<6 ;?>.231 D;<@ 8>;?@>6 9; >68

;??>, ;?8 =?@8=<>;8 8>Q? >8 ?8>?? 8><>@ >6<> >6?

;?=<>?= 8<== ;?>8 =??>? ?; >6? C@;?88<= P; B<;;?=4

=??> < = >6? <><= ??=?> @<=8 > >6? >;8? <@;<88;>8 <8 ?== <8 > ?;?88? <;?<8 66 <;? ?;=? ?>;<=

<@??8 66 <;? ;?? >6 ?@<-;?>8. S=<;=, 68 A@8> 23,

2013 8??6 >6? <=> 9 PDAF < @?><; ;?9;8, P;?8?>

A ?>? >6<> >6? C@;?88<= P; B<;;?= <8 ;@<== ?8><=86?

9; < ;>6 @<=, 66 8 > ?<=? >6? ;?;?8?><>?8 > ?>9 ;?>8 9;

>?8 >6<> >6? LGU ?;? <> <K;.

7/18/2019 CASE PDAF 2


N>>68><@ >6?8? ?=<;<>8, >6? C;>, 6??;, Q8 < 6?;?>

?9?> >6? 88>? 66 <><== ?=?8 >6? <? >?> 9 <@

?<= >6? ?<=.

I <;>=<;, >6? C;> 8?;?8 >6<> >6? @<@? 9 PDAF < CDF

<==<>/8 8 <8? 8=?= >6? 9<> 9

?, >6> ><@ > <> >6? 8?Q >?;?8>8 < ?=<;>?8 9 >6?

8>;> >6? =?@8=<>; ;?;?8?>8. I >68 ;?@<;, >6? <==<>/8 =>8

<;? =?<;= > <8? @?? <;<?>?;8 9 ?<=>, 6?;? ? ;

@?@;<6 <>;8 6<? ?? ><? > 8?;<>. A8 < ;?8=>, < 8>;>

;?;?8?><>? 9 < 6@6=-;<? ?>;=8 @?>8 >6? 8<? <> 9

9@ <8 < 8>;> ;?;?8?><>? 9 < 9<;-@ ;;<= ;? 66 = ?;?=<>?= ?;??=?<;? > >6? 9;?;. T <, 6<> ;8?8 @;<?;

8;> 8 >6<> ?? S?<>;8 < P<;>-L8> R?;?8?><>?8 < 8?

?<;8, ?? >6? V?-P;?8?> 6 > ;?;?8?> < =<=>, ;???

9@ 9; >6? C@;?88<= P; B<;;?= <8 ?==. T6?8? ?;><= <;?

<<>6?< > >6? C@;?88<= P; B<;;?=58 ;@<= >?> 66 8 > <?

?<= >6? ?<=. U=><>?=, >6? PDAF < CDF 6< ?? ?;8<= 98

?; >6? ?K?>? >;= 9 ?<6 =?@8=<>; < @? > >6? >6? 8=?

<> 9 >6?; ?.

T6? C;> <=8 8?;?8 >6<> >68 ?> 9 =?@8=<>; >;= ?;=@ >6?

CDF < PDAF >8 >6 >6? 9>8 9 >6? <;8 L<= D??=?>

C=8 (LDC8% 66 <;? <=;?< =?@<== <<>? > <888> >6?

;;?8@ sanggunian 8?>>@ >6? ;?> 9 ? < 8<=

??=?>, < ;<>@ ??=?> ?K;>8 >6 >8 >?;;>;<=

;8>.23 C8?;@ >6<> LDC8 <;? 8>;?><=>?8 68? 9>8

<;? ?88?><== @?<;? ><;8 <<@@ =<= <K<;8, >6?; ;@;<8, =?8

< ;?8=>8 86= > ? ?;;? ; =<>? <==?@8=<>;8, 6 <;? <><= ?;8 >6<> 6<? =<-<@ <>6;> ??>

= 6? <>@ <8 < . T6? ?;@ ?K?> =<= <> <8?

>6? 8>-?<>?> <>6;> 9?;;? > >6? =<>>?; <8 8>= >

?>>?;8 >6? 9==@ 8?: >6 PDAF, < C@;?88< < 8= <88

>6? =<= ??=?> = < ><>? ;?>8 68 , < ?? ><?

8=? ;?> 9; >8 ??>. I??, >68 >? 9 ?;8<=>-;? ;?>

7/18/2019 CASE PDAF 2


?>Q<> 6<8 > = >;>? =>>=? > >6? ?;<== ??=?> 9 >6?

8>;>, > 6<8 ?? >;>? > 9;>6?; ?<?@ 9;<8>;>;?

=<@ < ;<> ?K;>8 9 >6? @?;?>.

T68, 89<; <8 <= =?@8=<>;8 <;? <>6;? > >?;?? ;?= =<=

<>>?;8 < >6?;? 8?;> @?? =<= <>, >6? PDAF A;>=? <8 ?==

<8 <== >6?; 8=<; 9;8 9 C@;?88<= P; B<;;?= 8 ???

8>>><=.'

PETITIONERS ARGUES THAT SECTION ) OF PD 10 IS NOT AN APPROPRIATION

LA SINCE THE PRIMAR" AND SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF PD 10 IS THE CREATION

OF AN ENERG" DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND SECTION ) THEREOF ONL" CREATED

A SPECIAL FUND INCIDENTAL THERETO.

PETITIONERS ALSO ARGUES THAT SECTION 12 OF PD 1)+ IS NEITHER A VALID

APPROPRIATIONS LA SINCE THE ALLOCATION OF THE PRESIDENTIAL SOCIAL

FUND IS MEREL" INCIDENTAL TO THE PRIMAR" AND SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF PD

1)+ HICH IS THE AMENDMENT OF THE FRANCHISE AND POERS OF PAGCOR.

ARE THEIR CONTENTIONS CORRECT

NO. APPROPRIATION NEED NOT BE THE PRIMAR" PURPOSE OF THE LA IN

ORDER FOR A VALID APPROPRIATION TO E!IST. IF A DETERMINATE OR

DETERMINABLE AMOUNT OF MONE" IS ALLOCATED FOR A PARTICULAR PUBLIC

PURPOSE, THEN SUCH APPROPRIATION IS VALID.

&T68, <8? >6? 9;?@@, >6? C;> <> 88>< >6? <;@?> >6<> >6?

<;;<> 8> ? >6? ;<; < 8?Q ;8? 9 >6? =< ;?;

9; < <= <;;<> =< > ?8>. T ;?>?;<>?, 9 < =?@<= ;8

?8@<>?8 < ?>?;<>? ; ?>?;<=? <> 9 ? < <==<>?8 >6?8<? 9; < <;>=<; = ;8?, >6? >6? =?@8=<>? >?> > <;;<>?

??8 <<;?> <, 6??, <=;?< 8?> > 8<>89 >6? ;?;??> 9

< <;;<> <? =< ?; >?=<> 9 >6? C8>>>.'

HAT IS AN APPROPRIATION MADE B" LA

7/18/2019 CASE PDAF 2


IT E!ISTS HEN HEN A PROVISION OF LA ( A% SETS APART A DETERMINATE

OR DETERMINABLE AMOUNT OF MONE" AND (B% ALLOCATES THE SAME FOR A

PARTICULAR PUBLIC PURPOSE.

A <;;<> <? =< ?; >6? >?=<> 9 S?> 2(1%,

A;>=? VI 9 >6? 1)7 C8>>> ?8>8 6? < ;8 9 =< (a% 8?>8 <<;>

< ?>?;<>? ; ?>?;<=? <> 9 ? < (b% <==<>?8 >6? 8<? 9;

< <;>=<; = ;8?. T6?8? > ?8@<>8 9 <> <

;8? 8>? 9; >6? ?; ?Q> 9 >6? ; <;;<>, 66

?<8 > <==>, <88@, 8?> <<;> ; <= > < <;>=<; 8? ; ;8?, <

6??, 9 ;>>? > >6? =<, ?8>;<>? >6<> >6? =?@8=<>? >?> >

<;;<>? ?8>8. A8 >6? C8>>> ?8 > ;? ; ;?8;? <<;>=<; 9; 9 ;8 ; ;?=@8 ;?><=8 66 < <>6;<> ;

<;;<> C@;?88 86<== ? <?, ??> >6<> > ? W<? =<,5 <

<;;<> =< < <;@ > P!ilconsa ? ?><=? < <8 ;< <8

C@;?88 <>8 > > ? 9; <8 =@ <8 >6? >?> > <;;<>? < ?

@=?<? 9; >6? 8<?. A8 6?= >6?

<8? 9 %uingona& Jr.: T46?;? 8 ;8 ; C8>>> >6<> ;?8

; ;?8;?8 < <;>=<; 9; 9 ;8 ; ;?=@8 ;?><=8 66 <

<>6;<> ; <;;<> C@;?88 86<== ? <?, ??> >6<> >

? &<? =<,' 86 <8 ;?8?= >6? <>6;<> ; <;;<> ?;

>6? ?8>? ;?8?><= ?;??8.

I >6?; ;8, >?;8 9 >? 6;8, < <;;<> < ? <?

=?= (<8 <8> > 888>@ =?@8=<>8% <8 ?== <8 ?;?88= 9; >6?

;;?> Q8<= ?<; (<8 ?<>?> 9 =<8 >6? ;?8?> C@;?88%, 8> <8

8< <;;<> < ? <? @??;<= <8 ?== <8 8?Q >?;8. T6?

C@;?88<= <>6;<> < ? ?? <<= =<8, 86 <8 < @??;<=

<;;<>8 <> ; 8?<= ;88 9 =<8 9 @??;<= ; 8?<=<=<> 66 <;;<>? = 98 9; 8?Q = ;8?8, 86 <8

>6? ?8>? ?;??8. A <;;<> ?<8;? 8 8?> 9 >6? =?@8=<>?

>?> =?<;= < ?;><= <?<;8 9; >6?

=<@<@? ?=? (I ;? C>@ A;;<>8, 32 P. 272%, 6?>6?; >6?

<8> ; >6? ;?8?>. (E6<8?8 < ?;8;@ 8=?%.

7/18/2019 CASE PDAF 2


L?8?, <8 ;=? >6? US S;?? C;> State of Nevada v. La %rave: T

8>>>? < <;;<> >6?;? 8> ? ? =<? < 9 <=<=? >

>6? ?8@<>? ;8?. T6? ; <;;<>? ?<8 > <==>, <88@, 8?> <<;>

; <= > < <;>=<; 8? ; ;8?.

A <;;<> >6? 8?8? 9 >6? 8>>> ?<8 >6? 8?>>@ <<;> <

;> 9 >6? = 98 9; < = ;8?. N <;>=<; 9; 9 ;8 8

??88<; 9; >6? ;8?, 9 >6? >?> > <;;<>? 8 =<= <9?8>?.

(E6<8?8 8=?%'

IN THE LIGHT OF THE DEFINITION OF APPROPRIATION, HAT MA#ES THE PDAF

APPROPRIATION ILLEGAL

IT IS THE INTERMEDIATE APPROPRIATIONS HICH MA#E IT ILLEGAL. THESE

INTERMEDIATE APPROPRIATIONS ARE THE ACTUAL APPROPRIATIONS MEANT

FOR ENFORCEMENT AND SINCE THE" ARE MADE B" INDIVIDUAL LEGISLATORS

AFTER THE GAA IS PASSED, THE" OCCUR OUTSIDE THE LA.

&I >68 ;?=<>, > 8 <;8 > >? >6<> >6? 2013 PDAF A;>=? <> ?

;?;= ??? <8 < =?@<= <;;<> ?; >6? 8< 8>>><=

;8 ;?8?= ?<8?, <8 ?<;=?; 8><>?, > ><8 8>?<>?>

?<8;?8 66 ?K?>?= ;?<>? < 88>? 9 >?;?<>? <;;<>8.

T6?8? >?;?<>? <;;<>8 <;? >6? <><= <;;<>8 ?<> 9;

?9;??> < 8? >6? <;? <? <= =?@8=<>;8 <9>?; >6? GAA 8

<88?, >6? ; >8? >6? =<. A8 86, >6? C;> 8?;?8 >6<> >6? ;?<=

<;;<> <? ?; >6? 2013 PDAF A;>=? 8 > >6? P2.7 B==

<==<>? 9; >6? ?>;? PDAF, > ;<>6?; >6? 8>-?<>?> ?>?;<>8

<? >6? <= =?@8=<>;8 66 <;?, > ;??<>, ;;??8 >8? 9

>6? =<. I;;?9;<@<=, >6? 2013 PDAF A;>=? ?8 > 8>>>? <

<;;<> <? =< 8? >, >8 >;?8> 8?8?, = <>6;?8<= =?@8=<>;8 > <;;<>? =<> 9 >6? -?=?@<=>

;=? <8 <9;?-888?.'

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

7/18/2019 CASE PDAF 2


PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT SECTION ) OF PD 10 CONSTITUTES AN UNDUE

DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POER SINCE THE PHRASE &AND FOR SUCH

OTHER PURPOSES AS MA" BE HEREAFTER DIRECTED B" THE PRESIDENT' GIVES

THE PRESIDENT UNBRIDLED DISCRETION TO DETERMINE FOR HAT PURPOSE

THE FUNDS ILL BE USED. IS THEIR CONTENTION CORRECT

"ES.

THE APPROPRIATION LA MUST CONTAIN ADEUATE LEGISLATIVE GUIDELINES

IF THE SAME LA DELEGATES RULE-MA#ING AUTHORIT" TO THE E!ECUTIVE. PD

10 DOES NOT CONTAIN SUCH GUIDELINES.

&T6? C;> <@;??8 >6 ?>>?;85 8888. 6=? >6? ?8@<> 9 <?>?;<>? ; ?>?;<=? <> 9; < <;>=<; = ;8? 8

8?> 9; < =?@<= <;;<> > ?8>, >6? <;;<> =< 8> ><

<?<>? =?@8=<>? @?=?8 9 >6? 8<? =< ?=?@<>?8 ;=?-<@ <>6;>

> >6? E?>?.'

HAT ARE THE PURPOSES OF THESE GUIDELINES

EITHER ( A% TO FILL UP UP THE DETAILS OF THE LA FOR ITS ENFORCEMENT,

#NON AS SUPPLEMENTAR" RULE-MA#ING, OR (B% TO ASCERTAIN FACTS TO

BRING THE LA INTO ACTUAL OPERATION, REFERRED TO AS CONTINGENT RULE-

MA#ING.

&. I ;?=<> >6?;?>, > < ??;8? >8 ;=?-<@ <>6;> > @;?<>?;

<;>=<;? >6? @?=?8 9; 86 ;8? 9 (a% Q==@ >6? ?><=8 9 >6?

=< 9; >8 ?9;??>, <8 8=??><; ;=?-<@, ; (b%

<8?;><@ 9<>8 > ;@ >6? =< > <><= ?;<>, ;?9?;;? > <8

>@?> ;=?-<@.'

HAT ARE THE TESTS TO ENSURE THAT THE LEGISLATIVE GUIDELINES FOR

DELEGATED RULEMA#ING ARE INDEED ADEUATE

THERE ARE TO FUNDAMENTAL TESTS: (A% THE COMPLETENESS TEST AND (B%

THE SUFFICIENT STANDARD TEST.

HAT IS THE COMPLETENESS TEST

7/18/2019 CASE PDAF 2


IT MEANS THAT THE LA IS COMPLETE HEN IT SETS FORTH THEREIN THE

POLIC" TO BE E!ECUTED, CARRIED OUT OR IMPLEMENTED B" THE DELEGATE.

HAT IS THE SUFFICIENT STANDARD TEST

IT MEANS THAT A LA LA"S DON A SUFFICIENT STANDARD HEN IT PROVIDES

ADEUATE GUIDELINES OR LIMITATIONS IN THE LA TO MAP OUT THE

BOUNDARIES OF THE DELEGATE5S AUTHORIT" AND PREVENT THE DELEGATION

FROM RUNNING RIOT.

&T6?;? <;? > (2% 9<?><= >?8>8 > ?8;? >6<> >6? =?@8=<>? @?=?8

9; ?=?@<>? ;=?<@ <;? ?? <?<>?. T6? Q;8> >?8> 8 <==? >6?

=?>??88 >?8>.

C<8? =< 8><>?8 >6<> < =< 8 =?>? 6? > 8?>8 9;>6 >6?;? >6? = >? ??>?, <;;? >, ; =??>? >6? ?=?@<>?. O >6? >6?; 6<,

>6? 8? >?8> 8 <==? >6? 8?> 8><<; >?8>. J;8;?? 6=8

>6<> < =< =<8 < 8?> 8><<; 6? > ;?8 <?<>? @?=?8

; =><>8 >6? =< > < > >6? <;?8 9 >6? ?=?@<>?58 <>6;>

< ;??> >6? ?=?@<> 9; ;@ ;>.'

HAT SHOULD CHARACTERIZE THE REUIRED STANDARD

THE STANDARD MUST SPECIF" THE LIMITS OF THE DELEGATE5S

AUTHORIT",ANNOUNCE THE LEGISLATIVE POLIC", AND IDENTIF" THE

CONDITIONS UNDER HICH IT IS TO BE IMPLEMENTED.

&T ? 8?>, >6? 8><<; 8> 8?9 >6? =>8 9 >6? ?=?@<>?58

<>6;>, <? >6? =?@8=<>? =, < ?>9 >6? >8 ?;

66 > 8 > ? =??>?.'

BASED ON THE ABOVE PRINCIPLES, HO SHOULD SECTION ) OF PD 10 BEVIEED

THE PHRASE &AND FOR SUCH OTHER PURPOSES AS MA" BE HEREAFTER

DIRECTED B" THE PRESIDENT' CONSTITUTES AN UNDUE DELEGATION OF

LEGISLATIVE POER INSOFAR AS IT DOES NOT LA" DON A SUFFICIENT

STANDARD TO ADEUATEL" DETERMINE THE LIMITS OF THE PRESIDENT5S

7/18/2019 CASE PDAF 2


AUTHORIT" ITH RESPECT TO THE PURPOSE FOR HICH THE MALAMPA"A

FUNDS MA" BE USED.

&I ? 9 >6? 9;?@@, >6? C;> <@;??8 >6 ?>>?;8 >6<> >6? 6;<8?

< 9; 86 >6?; ;8?8 <8 < ? 6?;?<9>?; ;?>? >6?

P;?8?> ?; S?> ) 9 PD 10 8>>>?8 < ? ?=?@<> 9

=?@8=<>? ?; 89<; <8 > ?8 > =< < 8?> 8><<; >

<?<>?= ?>?;? >6? =>8 9 >6? P;?8?>58 <>6;> >6 ;?8?> > >6?

;8? 9; 66 >6? M<=<<< F8 < ? 8?.

A8 > ;?<8, >6? 8< 6;<8? @?8 >6? P;?8?> ? =<>>? > 8? >6?

M<=<<< F8 9; < >6?; ;8? 6? < ;?> <, ?K?>, <==8 6

> =<>?;<== <;;<>? = 98 ? >6? ;? 9 >6? =<.'

RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT THE PHRASE &PHRASE &AND FOR SUCH OTHER

PURPOSES AS MA" BE HEREAFTER DIRECTED B" THE PRESIDENT' MA" BE

CONFINED ONL" TO ENERG" DEVELOPMENT AND E!PLOITATION PROGRAMS AND

PROJECTS OF THE GOVERNMENT BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF EJUSDEM

GENERIS. IS THIS CONTENTION CORRECT

NO, FOR THREE REASONS:

FIRST, THE PHRASE ENERG" RESOURCE EVELOPMENT AND E!PLOITATION

PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS OF THE GOVERNMENTSTATES A SINGULAR AND

GENERAL CLASS AND HENCE, CANNOT BE TREATED AS A STATUTOR" REFERENCE

OF SPECIFIC THINGS FROM HICH THE GENERAL PHRASE FOR SUCH OTHER

PURPOSES MA" BE LIMITED$

SECOND, THE SAID PHRASE ALSO E!HAUSTS THE CLASS IT REPRESENTS,

NAMEL" ENERG" DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS OF THE GOVERNMENT$ AND,

THIRD, THE E!ECUTIVE DEPARTMENT HAS, IN FACT, USED THE MALAMPA"A

FUNDS FOR NON-ENERG" RELATED PURPOSES UNDER THE SUBJECT PHRASE,

THEREB" CONTRADICTING RESPONDENTS5 ON POSITION THAT IT IS LIMITED

ONL" TO ENERG" RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT AND E!PLOITATION PROGRAMS

AND PROJECTS OF THE GOVERNMENT.

7/18/2019 CASE PDAF 2


HO ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONALIT" OF SECTION 12 OF PD 1)+ AS AMENDED

B" PD 13 HAT DOES IT PROVIDE

IT PROVIDES THAT THE PRESIDENTIAL SOCIAL FUND MA" BE USED FOR TO

PURPOSES:

FIRST,4 TO FINANCE THE PRIORIT" INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

AND$

SECOND,4 TO FINANCE THE RESTORATION OF DAMAGED OR DESTRO"ED

FACILITIES DUE TO CALAMITIES, AS MA" BE DIRECTED AND AUTHORIZED B" THE

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES.

IS THE SECOND PURPOSE CONSTITUTIONAL

"ES.

THE SECOND INDICATED PURPOSE ADEUATEL" CURTAILS THE AUTHORIT" OF

THE PRESIDENT TO SPEND THE PRESIDENTIAL SOCIAL FUND ONL" FOR

RESTORATION PURPOSES HICH ARISE FROM CALAMITIES.

IS THE FIRST PURPOSE CONSTITUTIONAL

NO.

IT GIVES THE PRESIDENT CA'(# BLANCH# AUTHORIT" TO USE THE SAME FUND

FOR AN" INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT HE MA" SO DETERMINE AS A PRIORIT".

VERIL", THE LA DOES NOT SUPPL" A DEFINITION OF PRIORIT"

INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AND HENCE, LEAVES THE

PRESIDENT ITHOUT AN" GUIDELINE TO CONSTRUE THE SAME.

&T6? C;> Q8 >6<> 6=? >6? 8? <>? ;8? <?<>?= ;><=8

>6? <>6;> 9 >6? P;?8?> > 8? >6? P;?8?><= S<= F = 9;

;?8>;<> ;8?8 66 <;8? 9; <=<>?8, >6? Q;8> <>? ;8?,

6??;, @?8 6carte blanc!e <>6;> > 8? >6? 8<? 9 9; <

7/18/2019 CASE PDAF 2


9;<8>;>;? ;?> 6? < 8 ?>?;? <8 < ;;>. V?;=, >6? =< ?8

> 8=

< ?Q> 9 ;;> 9;<8>;>;? ??=?> ;?>8 < 6??, =?<?8

>6? P;?8?> >6> < @?=? > 8>;? >6? 8<?. T >?, >6?

?=><> 9 < ;?> <8 ? 9 9;<8>;>;? 8 > ;< 9 <

=<88Q<> 8? >6? 8< >?; = ?;>< > < 9 9<=>. T68 <

? ?? 9; >8 =?@;<6 ?Q> <8 9==8: >46? ?;=@

9;<?; 9 < 88>?, ?8?<==4 = 8?;?8 < 9<=>?8 (86 <8

6@6<8, 86=8, ;@?8, 8??;8, < <>?;-88>?8% ??? > 8;>

?;? <8 ?== <8 ? < ;?8?><= ??=?>.

I Q?, >6? 6;<8? > Q<? >6? ;;> 9;<8>;>;? ??=?>

;?>8 8> ? 8>;? <8 8>>><= 8? 8=<; > >6? <?<88<=? ;8 ?; S?> ) 9 PD 10 > =?8 ???>= 9?>>?;?

< 8?> 8><<; 9 >6? ?=?@<>@ =<. A8 >6? <;? 8??;<=?, <==

>6?; ;88 9 S?> 12 9 PD 1)+, <8 <?? PD 13, ;?<8

=?@<== ?K?>? < 888>@.'

PETITIONER PRA" THAT THE E!ECUTIVE SECRETAR" AND/OR DBM BE ORDERED

TO RELEASE TO COA AND THE PUBLIC THE FOLLOING:

( A% THE COMPLETE SCHEDULE/LIST OF LEGISLATORS HO HAVE AVAILED OF

THEIR PDAF AND VILP FROM THE "EARS 2003 TO 2013, SPECIF"ING THE USE OF

THE FUNDS, THE PROJECT OR ACTIVIT" AND THE RECIPIENT ENTITIES OR

INDIVIDUALS, AND ALL PERTINENT DATA THERETO (PDAF USE

SCHEDULE/LIST%$2* AND

(B% THE USE OF THE E!ECUTIVE5S LUMP-SUM, DISCRETIONAR"4 FUNDS,

INCLUDING THE PROCEEDS FROM THE ! ! ! MALAMPA"A FUNDS4 AND4

REMITTANCES FROM THE PAGCOR4 ! ! ! FROM 2003 TO 2013, SPECIF"ING THE! ! ! PROJECT OR ACTIVIT" AND THE RECIPIENT ENTITIES OR INDIVIDUALS, AND

ALL PERTINENT DATA THERETO2** (PRESIDENTIAL POR# USE REPORT%.

PETITIONERS BASED THEIR REUEST ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

THAT THE STATE ADOPTS AND IMPLEMENTS A POLIC" OF FULL PUBLIC

DISCLOSURE OF ALL ITS TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE

7/18/2019 CASE PDAF 2


RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO INFORMATION ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN

AND ACCESS TO OFFICIAL RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS SHALL BE AFFORDED

THE CITIZENS.

IS THEIR PRA"ER PROPER

NO.

THE PROPER REMED" TO INVO#E THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION IS TO FILE A

PETITION FOR MANDAMUS.

&C<8? =< 8>;>8 >6<> >6? ;?; ;?? > ? >6? ;@6> > 9;<> 8

> Q=? < ?>> 9; <<8. A8 ?=<? >6? <8? 9 Legas"i v. CivilService Coission:2*+ 46=? >6? <?; 9 ?<@ = ;?;8 <

? 8?> > ;?<8<=? ;?@=<> >6? @?;?> <@? 8>

>6?;?9, >6? > > 8=8? >6? 9;<> 9 = ?;, < > <K;

<?88 > = ;?;8 <> ? 8;?><; >6? <;> 9 8< <@??8.

C?;><=, >8 ?;9;<? <> ? <? >@?> >6? 8;?> 9

86 <@??8. O>6?;8?, >6? ??> 9 >6? 8>>><= ;@6> < ?

;??;? @<>; < 68<= ??;8? 9 <@? 8;?>.

T6? 8>>><= >, > ?@ 8;?><;, >8 ?;9;<? < ?

?==? < ;> 9 <<8 < "ro"er case.'

HAT IS THE DECISIVE UESTION ON THE PROPRIET" OF THE SSUANCE OF THE

RIT OF MANDAMUS

THE UESTION IS HETHER THE INFORMATION SOUGHT B" THE PETITIONER IS

ITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE.

DOES THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO COMPEL THE

PREPARATION OF LISTS ABSTRACTS, SUMMARIES AND THE LI#E

NO AS RULED IN VALMONTE VS. BELMONTE.

7/18/2019 CASE PDAF 2


HAT IS ESSENTIAL IN A MANDAMUS CASE PRA"ING FOR CERTAIN DOCUMENTS

AND RECORDS

IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE APPLICANT HAS A ELL DEFINED, CLEAR AND

CERTAIN LEGAL RIGHT TO THE THING DEMANDED AND THAT IT IS THE

IMPERATIVE DUT" OF DEFENDANT TO PERFORM THE ACT REUIRED.

IS THE REUEST OF THE PETITIONERS FOR DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS PROPER

NO BECAUSE THE" FAILED TO ESTABLISH A ELL DEFINED, CLEAR AND CERTAIN

LEGAL RIGHTS TO BE FURNISHED OF THE DOCUMENTS THE" REUESTED.

&T6? ;??8> 9 >6? ?>>?;8 9<=8 > ??> >68 8><<;, >6?;? ?@ > >6? <;> 9 ;?8?> > ;?<;? >6? =8> ;??8>?. (E6<8?8 8=?%

I >6?8? <8?8, <8? 9; >6? 9<> >6<> ? 9 >6? ?>>8 <;? >6? <>;?

9 <<8 <>8, >6? C;> Q8 >6<> ?>>?;8 6<? 9<=? > ?8><=86 <

< ?==-?Q?, =?<; < ?;>< =?@<= ;@6> > ? 9;86? >6? E?>?

S?;?><; </; >6? DBM 9 >6?; ;??8>? PDAF U8? S6?=?/L8> <

P;?8?><= P; U8? R?;>. N?>6?; ?>>?;8 <88?;> < =< ;

<8>;<>? 88<? 66 = 9; >6? <8?8 9 >6?

=<>>?;58 > > 9;86 >6? >6 >6? ?>8 ;??8>?. 6=? ?>>?;8

;< >6<> 8< 9;<> ? ?<== ;?=?<8? > >6? CA, > 8> ? >?

> >6<> >6? CA 6<8 > ?? =?<? <8 < <;> > >6?8? <8?8 ; 6<8 >

Q=? < ?>> ?9;? >6? C;> > ? <==? <?88 > ; > ?= >6?

;?=?<8? 9 < <= ?> ;?=?<> > >6? > 9 >8 <>

?8>@<>8. 6=? >6? C;> ;?@?8 >6<> >6? 9;<> ;??8>? 8 <

<>>?; 9 8@Q<> = ?;, 6??;, 9 = > ?8;? >6<> >6?

<;<?>?;8 9 8=8;? <;? ;?;= 98>? < 8 <8 > > = 6<?;

>6? ?<== ;><> >?;?8>8 9 >6? @?;?>, > 8 8>;<? > ??>>?;85 ;<?; >68 8;?, >6> ;?? > < ;?; <<8 <8?

66 >6?, ; ?? >6? CA, < 68? > ;8? >6;@6 < 8?<;<>?

?>>.'

case pdaf 2

Documents