SC: All pork, Malampaya funds frozen Written by Benjamin B. Pulta and Charlie V. Manalo Wednesday, 11 September 2013 08:00 font size decrease font size increase font size Print 2 comments The Supreme Court has placed on hold the release of discretionary funds of legislators under the 2013 budget called Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) otherwise known as the notorious pork barrel. In a restraining order, the high court also ordered oral arguments on the suits questioning the legality of the funds. The temporary restraining order (TRO) also covered the use of Malampaya funds to finance non-energy related projects. In yesterday’s regular en-banc session of the magistrates consolidated were the three suits, seeking to scrap the government’s From page 1 Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or pork barrel system. SC spokesman Theodore Te explained that the TRO covers the release of Malampaya Funds under the phrase “for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President” under President Decree No. 910 but not for the purpose of “financing energy resource development and exploitation programs and projects of the government.” Te directed the TRO to the Department of Budget and Management, the National Treasurer, the Executive Secretary or any persons acting under their authority. “The act restrained is the release of PDAF not the inclusion of PDAF. It does not affect the (2013) General Appropriations Act,” Te said. Consolidated were the petitions filed by Social Justice System (SJS) president Samson Alcantara against Speaker Sonny Belmonte and Senate President Franklin Drilon; Belgica vs Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr., et al; and former Boac, Marinduque Mayor Pedrito Nepomuceno vs President Aquino. The Court earlier acted on the petition filed by Alcantara ordering Belmonte and Drilon to comment on his petition within 10 days. On the other hand,former Manila Rep. Greco Belgica asked the Court to declare as unconstitutional the pork barrel system including the Executive’s lump sum, discretionary funds except the calamity fund and the contingent fund. Belgica also asked the Court to strike down for being unconstitutional a portion of the last sentence of Section 8, of Presidential Decree No. 910 which specifically states: “and for such other purposes as may hereafter directed by the President.” P.D. 910 which was enacted on March 22, 1976 governs the use and disposition of Malampaya Fund and other funds of a similar nature. Belgica argued that based on Section 8 of P.D. 910, Malampaya Fund and other similar funds can only be used “to finance energy resource development and exploitation programs and projects of the government.” However, Belgica said the Executive Branch took advantage of the said portion of the last sentence in Section 8 to insist that the proceeds of the Malampaya Fund can be used to finance any project of the President. Belgica said the said phrase violates the principle of proper delegation of power for being “too broad and vague.” In his separate petition, Alcantara sought to scrap the annual pork barrel allocations for lawmaker, “in whatever form and by whatever name it may be called” for being unconstitutional. “The pork barrel system allows the perversion of taxation by providing opportunities for the members thereof to gorge themselves in funds collected pursuant to tax legislation they have enacted purportedly for the public good,” Alcantara said in his petition. Alcantara added the pork barrel system is a “mockery” of the constitutional mandate on accountability, honesty and integrity of public officers. He added that the system also allows the executive to have control over lawmakers, thus, violate the constitutional principle on separation of powers. On the other hand, Nepomuceno asked the Court to declare PDAF unconstitutional as it has become “the most abused and misused funds” of all available funds in the government.” “It has become a suppressive scheme as it was become a tool to divide our leaders and our people rather than a development tool to develop our nation,” the petition read. The abolition of the P25.2 billion Priority Development Assistance Fund in the 2014 budget and realigning the freed-up funds to specific line agencies amplifies the need to reconstitute the congressional oversight committee, the leader of the House independent bloc said. Leyte Rep. Ferdinand Martin Romualdez said the impending pork barrel fund realignment necessitates the revival of the Committee on Oversight to “oversee if these funds are properly disbursed by the respective executive departments.” “Our group is sensitive to the clamor of the people for more transparency in government disbursement. We need one standing committee to make sure that projects, especially those funded by the realigned funds, are properly implemented,” he told reporters. The standing Committee on Oversight was constituted in the 12th Congress and was around until the 14th Congress.
Posted on: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 07:14:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015