Case Digest (G.R. No. 208566)
Facts:
Greco Antonious Beda B. Belgica, Jose M. Villegas, Jr., Jose L. Gonzalez, Reuben M. Abante, and Quintin Paredes San Diego v. Honorable Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., Secretary of Budget and Management Florencio B. Abad, National Treasurer Rosalia V. De Leon, Senate of the Philippines represented by Franklin M. Drilon as Senate President, and House of Representatives represented by Feliciano S. Belmonte, Jr., G.R. No. 208566; Social Justice Society (SJS) President Samson S. Alcantara v. Hon. Franklin M. Drilon and Hon. Feliciano S. Belmonte, Jr., G.R. No. 208493; Pedrito M. Nepomuceno v. President Benigno S. Aquino III and Secretary Florencio B. Abad, G.R. No. 209251, November 19, 2013, the Supreme Court En Banc, Perlas-Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioners are several citizens and civic groups who challenged the constitutionality of what they described collectively as the “Pork Barrel System” — principally the Congressional Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) as embodied in Article XLIV of the 2013 General Appropriations Act (GAA), and certain Executive special funds (notably the Malampaya Fund under PD 910 and the Presidential Social Fund under PD 1869, as amended). Respondents included the Executive officers who administer and disburse funds (Executive Secretary, DBM Secretary, National Treasurer) and the legislative leaders (Senate President and House Speaker) who, petitioners alleged, participate in post-enactment allocation and release of appropriations.
Procedurally, three petitions were filed: petitioner Alcantara filed a Rule 65 petition (prohibition) on August 28, 2013 (docketed G.R. No. 208493); Belgica and others filed a Rule 65 urgent petition with TRO prayer on September 3, 2013 (docketed G.R. No. 208566); and Nepomuceno filed an earlier petition (originally UDK‑14951, redocketed as G.R. No. 209251) challenging PDAF releases. On September 10, 2013 the Court consolidated the cases, required comments from public respondents, appointed the CoA Chairperson as amicus curiae, and issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining the DBM, National Treasurer and Executive Secretary from releasing: (1) the remaining 2013 PDAF funds and (2) Malampaya funds under the phrase “for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President” in Section 8 of PD 910 (the TRO). The Office of the Solicitor General filed a consolidated comment seeking lifting or partial lifting of the TRO; petitioners filed replies.
Oral argument was conducted October 8 and 10, 2013 (the Court directed technical representatives of DBM and Congress and received the CoA Chair as amicus); parties filed memoranda. The petitions were brought under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (certiorari/prohibition). The Court thereafter issued its en banc decision on November 19, 2013: petitions were par...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Do the consolidated petitions present an actual, justiciable controversy and do petitioners have standing; and do prior rulings in Philconsa and LAMP bar relitigation by res judicata or stare decisis?
- Do the 2013 PDAF Article and similar Congressional Pork‑barrel laws violate the Constitution (separation of powers, non‑delegability of legislative power, checks and balances, accountability, political dynasty concerns, and local autonomy)?
- Do the phrases “and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President” in PD 910, Sec. 8 (Malampaya Funds) and “to finance the priority infrastructure development projects … as may be directed and authorized by the Office of the President” in PD 1869, Sec. 12 (Presidential Social Fund...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)