G.R. No. 210503, 8 October 2019
Summary
Belgica filed a petition seeking to declare the lump-sum discretionary funds in the 2014 GAA unconstitutional as they are of the same character as the pork barrel funds which were declared unconstitutional in the 2013 Belgica case, and should thus be prohibited. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
This case is a petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing the constitutionality of the “lump-sum discretionary funds” in the 2014 General Appropriations Act including, among others, the Unprogrammed Fund, the Contingent Fund, the E-Government Fund, and the Local Government Support Fund (collectively, the specifically assailed appropriations).
Facts
On November 13, 2013, the Court rendered its decision in Belgica v. Ochoa, Jr. (2013 Belgica case), declaring certain provisions of the 2013 GAA unconstitutional. In this decision, the following are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL:
- the entire 2013 Priority Development Assistance Fund [(PDAF)] Article;
- all legal provisions of past and present Congressional Pork Barrel Laws, such as the previous PDAF and [Countrywide Development Fund (CDF)] Articles and the various Congressional Insertions which authorize/d legislators to intervene, assume or participate in any of the various post-enactment stages of the budget execution, such as but not limited to the areas of project identification, modification and revision of project identification, fund release and/or fund realignment, unrelated to the power of congressional oversight; (allowed legislators to insert modifications to the national budget)
- all legal provisions of past and present Congressional Pork Barrel Laws, such as the previous PDAF and CDF Articles and the various Congressional Insertions, which confer/red personal, lump-sum allocations to legislators from which they are able to fund specific projects which they themselves determine; (allowed members of the Congress to obtain lump-sum allocations for specific projects that they identified)
- all informal practices of similar import and effect, which the Court similarly deems to be acts of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and
- the phrases (1) “and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President” under Section 8 of Presidential Decree No. 910 and (2) “to finance the priority infrastructure development projects” under Section 12 of Presidential Decree No. 1869, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1993, for both failing the sufficient standard test in violation of the principle of non-delegability of legislative power.
This decision in the 2013 Belgica case abolished the “pork barrel system” and similar informal practices. As well, the 2013 Belgica case declared as unconstitutional the broad standards of “other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President,” and “priority infrastructure development projects” for the use of the President’s Social Fund and the Malampaya Fund, respectively, for being insufficient standards to check the President’s discretion as to the use of these lump-sum funds.
Republic Act No. (RA) 10633 or the 2014 GAA was subsequently passed on December 27, 2013. It appropriated funds for the operations of the government for the fiscal year 2014.
On January 13, 2014, Greco Antonious Beda B. Belgica (Petitioner) filed the instant Petition, seeking to declare all lump-sum appropriations in the 2014 GAA unconstitutional, including the specifically assailed appropriations.
Petitioner asserts that the lump-sum discretionary funds in the 2014 GAA were passed in violation of the Constitution since these funds are of the same character as the pork barrel funds which were declared unconstitutional in the 2013 Belgica case, and should thus be prohibited.
Issues
- Whether the lump-sum appropriations found in the 2014 GAA are unconstitutional.
- Whether the Court can exercise its power of Judicial Review.
- Whether the 2013 Belgica case declared all lump-appropriations unconstitutional .
Ruling
- No. The all specifically assailed appropriations are valid items with discernible singular appropriation purpose in compliance with the rule on singular correspondence (an allocation of a specified singular amount for a specified singular purpose, also known as line-item).
a. The Unprogrammed Fund is constitutional as it specifically identifies the public purposes for which the fund may be used and contains singularly corresponding purposes.
b. The Contingent Fund is also constitutional. Its purpose is to cover the funding requirements of new or urgent projects that need to be implemented during the year, and the foreign travel expenses of the Office of the President which were not and could not have been anticipated during budget preparation and authorization. Hence, the same cannot be itemized. Further, the Court has already previously held in the 2013 Belgica case that the Contingent Fund is a valid line-item appropriation.
c. The E-Government Fund is constitutional. Its nature as a cross-agency fund requires it to be subject to the determination by the administrative agencies of the ongoing strategic information and communication technology projects in the priority sectors identified by the Legislature in the budget. Notably, these standards are already in place in existing executive issuances predating the assailed E-Government Fund provision, which the Court assumes the Legislature to have been aware of.
d. Lastly, the LGSF (LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FUND) provision of the 2014 GAA is constitutional as it provides sufficient standards which set the limits of the Executive’s authority to disburse the LGSF, determines the legislative policy behind the fund, and identifies the conditions under which the fund may be utilized. - Yes. The Court’s power of judicial review-specifically its power to review the constitutionality of the actions of other branches of government – is subject to well-defined limitations, to wit:
“(1) there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power;
(2) the person challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity of the subject act or issuance, [or,] otherwise stated, he must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement;
(3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and
(4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.”
There is actual controversy because the petition contest the validity of the specified appropriations, which if implemented may cause “injury or hardship to taxpayers”.
The Court may resolve cases otherwise moot and academic, when: (1) there is a grave violation of the Constitution; (2) the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved; (3) when constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and (4) the case is capable of repetition yet evading review. The Petition falls under the last three exceptions. - No. Petitioner’s heavy reliance on the 2013 Belgica case as precedent to argue that lump-sum appropriations are unconstitutional per se is erroneous. The rule on singular correspondence therein distinguished what is a prohibited lump-sum. The rule on singular correspondence therein distinguished what is a prohibited lump-sum.