Title
Supreme Court
Belgica vs. Ochoa
Case
G.R. No. 208566
Decision Date
Nov 19, 2013
The Philippine Supreme Court ruled the Pork Barrel System, including PDAF, unconstitutional, citing violations of separation of powers, specificity in appropriations, and public accountability, reinforcing governance transparency.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 234446)

Petitions and Legislative History

– Three separate Rule 65 actions were filed, later consolidated, each attacking (1) the PDAF provisions in the 2013 General Appropriations Act and similar “Congressional Pork Barrel” laws; (2) the so-called Malampaya Fund under P.D. 910; and (3) the Presidential Social Fund under P.D. 1869, as amended.
– Petitioners alleged that these funds violate separation of powers, non-delegability of legislative authority, checks and balances, accountability and local autonomy.

Applicable Law

– 1987 Philippine Constitution, chiefly:
• Article VI (Legislative Power and Appropriations)
• Article VII (Executive Power)
• Article VIII (Judicial Power, including remedy for grave abuse of discretion)
• Article X (Local Governments)
• Article XI (Public Officers and Accountability)
– P.D. 910 (Energy Development Board)
– P.D. 1869, as amended by P.D. 1993 (PAGCOR charter, presidential special fund)
– 2013 GAA (R.A. 10352), Title XLIV (PDAF) and Title XVIII (Various Infrastructure including Local Projects)

Issues Presented

  1. Procedural: standing, justiciability, the “political question” doctrine, and reliance on prior precedents (Philconsa, LAMP).
  2. Substantive (Congressional Pork Barrel): whether post-enactment identification, release and realignment features of the PDAF violate judicially enforceable provisions of the Separation of Powers, non-delegability of legislative authority, the President’s line-item veto power, checks and balances, accountability, and local autonomy.
  3. Substantive (Presidential Pork Barrel): whether phrases granting the President unfettered discretion over the Malampaya Fund and the Presidential Social Fund constitute undue delegations of legislative power.

Rulings on Procedural Issues

– Petitioners, as taxpayers and citizens, have standing to challenge the diversion of public funds.
– The petitions present actual, justiciable controversies: the PDAF and the special funds continue in effect pending the 2014 budget.
– The political-question doctrine does not bar judicial review under the 1987 Constitution, which expressly empowers courts to remedy grave abuse of discretion by any branch.
– Prior decisions (Philconsa, LAMP) are distinguished or inapplicable: the present challenge is broader in scope and involves doctrines (separation of powers, item veto, local autonomy) not previously examined.

Congressional Pork Barrel (PDAF) Held Unconstitutional

– Separation of Powers: The PDAF law delegates to individual legislators and congressional committees post-enactment authority over project identification, fund release and fund realignment—functions core to budget implementation and within the President’s exclusive executive power.
– Non-Delegability: By giving Members of Congress personal lump-sum funds they may allocate at will, the PDAF grants them the power to legislate appropriations, violating the constitutional mandate that only Congress as a body may appropriate by law.
– Line-Item Veto: Lump-sum budgeting in the PDAF denies the President any discernible “item” to veto, nullifying his constitutional power to veto particular items in an appropriation bill.
– Checks and Balances/Accountability: Requiring legislators’ concurrence or endorsements for fund release and realignment compromises their ability to perform impartial oversight and removes clear lines of responsibility.
– Local Autonomy: The PDAF allows national legislators to override or bypass local development councils and the institutionalized functions of local governments.

All Special Provisions of Title XLIV of R.A. 10352—and all analogous provisions in prior PDAF and CDF laws—are declared unconstitutional and severed. The Court’s September 10, 2013 temporary restraining order against the release of remaining PDAF funds is made permanent. Funds already obligated without proper Notice of Cash Allocation are enjoined.

Presidential Pork Barrel Held Unconstitutional

– P.D. 910 (Malampaya Fund): The phrase “and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President” fails the “sufficient standards” test and constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. The remainder of Section 8—appropriating royalties for energy resource development—is sustained.
– P.D. 1869, as amended (Presidential Social




...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.

About Privacy Terms