n a unanimous vote, the Supreme Court declared the congressional pork
barrel (not just the Priority Development Assistance Fund)
unconstitutional, thereby reversing three separate rulings it had issued
earlier sustaining the constitutionality of pork barrel. The decision
also invalidated illegal provisions in two laws that authorize the
President to use the controversial Malampaya fund and the President’s
Social Fund, which some, erroneously I believe, call presidential pork.
The main decision was penned by Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe
with Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, Senior Associate Justice
Antonio Carpio, Associate Justice Arturo Brion, and Associate Justice
Marvic Leonen registering their concurring opinions.
Aside from procedural issues, the ponencia resolved two substantive
issues, namely: (1) Whether or not the 2013 PDAF article and all other
congressional pork barrel laws similar thereto are unconstitutional; (2)
Whether or not certain provisions of PD 910,116, relating to the
Malampaya funds, and PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, relating to the
Presidential Social Fund, are unconstitutional insofar as they
constitute undue delegations of legislative power.
In declaring congressional pork barrel unconstitutional, the Court held
that post-enactment measures embedded in the PDAF - project
identification, fund release, and fund realignment - are not related to
legislative duties, and hence, are encroachments on duties that properly
belong to the executive function of budget execution. Second, the
individual participation of the members of the Congress is an express
violation of the principle of non-delegability of rule-making functions
lodged in the Congress.
Further, the Court said that “these post-enactment measures which govern
the areas of project identification, fund release and fund realignment
are not related to functions of congressional oversight and are
violative of the principle of non-delegability since said legislators
are effectively allowed to individually exercise the power of
appropriation, which is lodged in Congress.
The Court ruled not just on the PDAF but declared unconstitutional all
laws, (past, present and future) and formal and informal practices which
had allowed legislators to take part in post-enactment and
implementation. In my view, this renders the proposed legislative
initiative to ban the pork barrel unnecessary.
In her separate opinion, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, while
agreeing with the result, observed that the ponencia made no doctrinal
pronouncement that all lump-sum appropriations per se are
unconstitutional. She postulated that wholesale rejection of lump-sum
allocations contrives a rule of constitutional law broader than what is
required by the precise facts in the case. She further observed that
lump-sum appropriations are not textually prohibited by the
Constitution.
In the same breath, Justice Brion and Justice Leonen warned against the
possibility of the Court exceeding the bounds set by the actual case and
controversy; that a total condemnation of lump-sum funding is an
“extreme position that disregards the realities of national life,” as
Justice Brion stated.
The Court, echoing petitioners, said that “the fact that individual
legislators are given post-enactment roles in the implementation of the
budget makes it difficult for them to become disinterested ‘observers’
when scrutinizing, investigating or monitoring the implementation of the
appropriation law to a certain extent, the conduct of oversight would
be tainted as said legislators, who are vested with post-enactment
authority, would, in effect, be checking on activities in which they
themselves participate.
As to the presidential pork barrel, the ponencia agreed with petitioners
that “the phrase “and for such other purposes as may be hereafter
directed by the president” under section 8 of PD 910 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.
Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, concurring with the ponencia, reasoned
that the phrase “for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed
by the president” in PD 910 is an undue delegation of legislative power.
For his part, Associate Justice Brion said that the Malampaya fund
because of “its purpose and lack of specificity; its lump sum nature and
its disbursement solely at the discretion of one man, unchecked by any
other; how and why a multi-project and multi-activity fund covering many
projects and activities, now and in the future, should be held at the
discretion of one man; and the legal situation where the power of
congress and its participation in national policymaking through the
budget process is disregarded. All these can be encapsulated as
violations of the doctrines of separation of powers and checks and
balances x x x.”
The main decision concluded that the pork barrel system must be struck
down as unconstitutional insofar as, among others, “it has allowed
legislators to wield, xxx non-oversight, post-enactment authority in
vital areas of budget execution, the system has violated the principle
of separation of powers; insofar as it has conferred unto legislators
the power of appropriation by giving them personal, discretionary funds
from which they are able to fund specific projects which they themselves
determine, it has similarly violated the principle of non-delegability
of legislative power; insofar as it has created a system of budgeting
wherein items are not textualized into the appropriations bill, it has
flouted the prescribed procedure of presentment and, in the process,
denied the president the power to veto items.”
Emphasizing the deleterious nature of the pork barrel system Justice
Leonen most aptly puts it, saying: pork barrel funds historically
encourage dole-outs. It inculcates a perverse understanding of
representative democracy. It encourages a culture that misunderstands
the important function of public representation in congress. It does not
truly empower those who are impoverished or found in the margins of our
society.”
Facebook Page: Dean Tony La Viña Twitter: tonylavs
source: Manila Standard today
No comments:
Post a Comment