G.R.
No. 208566 November 19, 2013
GRECO ANTONIOUS
BEDA B. BELGICA JOSE M. VILLEGAS JR. JOSE L. GONZALEZ REUBEN M. ABANTE and
QUINTIN PAREDES SAN DIEGO, Petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA JR, et al, Respondents
vs.
HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA JR, et al, Respondents
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
NATURE:
These
are consolidated petitions taken under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, all of
which assail the constitutionality of the Pork Barrel System.
FACTS:
The
NBI Investigation was spawned by sworn affidavits of six (6) whistle-blowers
who declared that JLN Corporation (Janet Lim Napoles) had swindled billions of
pesos from the public coffers for "ghost projects" using dummy NGOs. Thus,
Criminal complaints were filed before the Office of the Ombudsman, charging
five (5) lawmakers for Plunder, and three (3) other lawmakers for Malversation,
Direct Bribery, and Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Also
recommended to be charged in the complaints are some of the lawmakers’ chiefs
-of-staff or representatives, the heads and other officials of three (3)
implementing agencies, and the several presidents of the NGOs set up by
Napoles.
Whistle-blowers
alleged that" at least P900 Million from royalties in the
operation of the Malampaya gas project off Palawan province intended for
agrarian reform beneficiaries has gone into a dummy NGO. Several petitions were
lodged before the Court similarly seeking that the "Pork Barrel
System" be declared unconstitutional
G.R. No. 208493 – SJS filed a Petition for
Prohibition seeking that the "Pork Barrel System" be declared
unconstitutional, and a writ of prohibition be issued permanently
G.R. No. 208566 - Belgica, et al filed an Urgent
Petition For Certiorari and Prohibition With Prayer For The Immediate Issuance of
Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction seeking that
the annual "Pork Barrel System," presently embodied in the provisions
of the GAA of 2013 which provided for the 2013 PDAF, and the Executive‘s
lump-sum, discretionary funds, such as the Malampaya Funds and the Presidential
Social Fund, be declared unconstitutional and null and void for being acts
constituting grave abuse of discretion. Also,
they pray that the Court issue a TRO against respondents
UDK-14951 – A Petition filed seeking that the PDAF be
declared unconstitutional, and a cease and desist order be issued restraining
President Benigno Simeon S. Aquino III (President Aquino) and Secretary Abad
from releasing such funds to Members of Congress
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the 2013 PDAF Article
and all other Congressional Pork Barrel Laws similar thereto are
unconstitutional considering that they violate the principles of/constitutional
provisions on (a) separation of powers; (b) non-delegability of legislative
power; (c) checks and balances; (d) accountability; (e) political dynasties;
and (f) local autonomy.
2. Whether or not the phrases (under
Section 8 of PD 910,116 relating 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.
HELD:
1. Yes, the PDAF article is
unconstitutional. The post-enactment measures which govern the areas of project
identification, fund release and fund realignment are not related to functions
of congressional oversight and, hence, allow legislators to intervene and/or
assume duties that properly belong to the sphere of budget execution. This
violates the principle of separation of powers.
Congress‘role must be confined to mere oversight that must be confined to: (1) scrutiny and (2) investigation and
monitoring of the implementation of laws. Any action or step beyond that will
undermine the separation of powers guaranteed by the constitution.
Thus, the court declares the 2013 pdaf article
as well as all other provisions of law which similarly allow legislators to
wield any form of post-enactment authority in the implementation or enforcement
of the budget, unrelated to congressional oversight, as violative of the
separation of powers principle and thus unconstitutional.
2.
Yes. Sec 8 of PD 910- the phrase “and for
such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President”‖ constitutes
an undue delegation of legislative power insofar as it does not lay down a
sufficient standard to adequately determine the limits of the President‘s
authority with respect to the purpose for which the Malampaya Funds may be
used. It gives the President wide latitude to use the Malampaya Funds for any
other purpose he may direct and, in effect, allows him to unilaterally
appropriate public funds beyond the purview of the law.”
Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993-
the phrases:
(b) "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.
(b)” and to finance the restoration of damaged or destroyed
facilities due to calamities, as may be directed and authorized by the Office
of the President of the Philippines” was declared unconstitutional.IT GIVES THE PRESIDENT CARTE BLANCHE AUTHORITY TO USE THE SAME FUND
FOR ANY INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT HE MAY SO DETERMINE AS A ―PRIORITY‖. VERILY, THE
LAW DOES NOT SUPPLY A DEFINITION OF ―PRIORITY INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS‖ AND HENCE, LEAVES THE PRESIDENT WITHOUT ANY GUIDELINE TO CONSTRUE THE
SAME.
No comments:
Post a Comment