Supreme Court declares PDAF unconstitutional By: Likha Cuevas-Miel and Ernesto Reyes, InterAksyon November 19, 2013 1:42 PM [Share This] InterAksyon The online news portal of TV5 (UPDATE 4 - 10 PM) MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court has found the Priority Development Assistance Fund - more commonly referred to as congressional pork barrel funds - unconstitutional, the high courts spokesman Atty. Theodore Te said Tuesday The decision was announced just as the Supreme Court was preparing to hear oral arguments on the Aquino administrations equally controversial Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), which is the subject of a separate complaint, but which critics assail as essentially cut from the same fabric as PDAF. On Tuesday it was announced that the SC justices voted 14-0-1 (with Associate Justice Presbiterio Velasco accounting for the one abstention) to find the PDAF inconsistent with the constitutional mandates of the executive and legislative branches of government. Legal challenges to the PDAF had argued that legislators had built into the legal frameworks for pork barrel funds mechanisms to influence the ultimate spending of the funds, thus creating conflict with Congress power of the purse, and breeding corruption. In a briefing, Atty. Te said the ruling declared illegal the entire 2013 PDAF, all legal provisions of the past and present Congressional Pork Barrel Laws, such as the previous PDAF and Country-wide Development Fund articles and the various Congressional Insertions. This decision was a partial granting of the three consolidated petitions challenging the legality oof the pork barrel system filed by Grego Belgica, Samson Alcantara of the Social Justice Society and Pedrito Nepomuceno. The high tribunal found the intervention, assumption and participation of lawmakers in any of the post-enactment stages in the execution of the budget - such as identification of projects, fund release and/or fund realignment - to be beyond to Congress power of oversight. It also deemed that personal lump-sum allocations to lawmakers, that allow them to fund specific projects that they determine, and all similar acts, to be acts of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of discretion. Moreover, the SC said the phrases in Section 8 of Presidential Decree 910 on the Malampaya Funds and for such other purposes as may be heareafter directed by the President, and the to finance the priority infrastructure development projects under Sec. 12 of PD 1869 (under the President’s Social Fund), as amended by PD 1993, had violated the principle of non-delegability of legislative power. As such, the court ruled to impose a permanent injunction against the PDAF. It first issued a TRO in September. Thus the disbursement /release of the remaining PDAF Funds allocated for the year 2013 as well as for the all previous years and the Malampaya Funds under the aforementioned phrase in PD 910 to be not covered by the Notice of Cash Allocations but only by Special Allotment Release Orders, whether obligated or not, are hereby enjoined, said the decision, penned by Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe. The Court declared as unconstitutional: a) the entire 2013 PDAF Article; b) 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 authorize/d legislators – whether individually or collectively organized into committees – to intervene, assume, or participate in any of the various post-enactment stafes of the budget execution…such as … project identification, modification, fund release or fund realignment, unrelated to the power of congressional oversight; c) all legal provisions of past and present Congressional Pork Barrel laws…which conferred personal, lump-sum allocations to legislators from which they are able to fund specific projects which they themselves determine; d) all informal practices of similar effect, which the Court similarly deems to be acts of grave abuyse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of discretion; and e) 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 PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, for both failing the sufficient standard test in violation of the principle of non-delegability of legislative power.” For lack of proper substantiation, however, the Court denied the petitioners’ prayer that the Executive Secretary and/or the Department of Budget and Management be ordered to provide the public and the Commission on Audit complete lists/schedules or detailed reports related to the availments and utilization of the funds subject of these cases. The Court added that the “petitioners’ access to official documents already available and of public record which are not related to these funds must, however, not be prohibited but merely subjected to the custodian’s reasonable regulations or any valid statutory prohibition on the same.” The denial is without prejudice to a proper mandamus case which the petitioners or the COA may choose to pursue through a separate petition, said the Court. The Court also denied the petitioners’ prayer to order the inclusion of the funds subject of these cases in the budgetary deliberations of Congress, as the same is a matter left to the prerogative of the political branches of government. In three separate instances in the past, the high court affirmed the legality of PDAF -- in 1994, when it was called the Countrywide Development Fund (Philconsa v. Enriquez case); in 2001 - in a resolution on the Andres Sarmiento et al. v. the Treasurer of the Philippines et al; and in 2012 in Lawyers Against Monopoly and Poverty v. the Secretary of Budget and Management et al. Meanwhile, the Court directed all prosecutorial organs of the government to, “within the bounds of reasonable dispatch, investigate and accordingly prosecute all government officials and/or private individuals for possible criminal offenses related to the irregular, improper and/or unlawful disbursement/utilization of all funds under the Pork Barrel System.” Separate opinions were submitted by the Chief Justice (concurring in the result only), Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio and Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen. In striking down the PDAF Article in the 2013 GAA, the Court said it “created a system of budgeting wherein items are not textualized into the appropriations bill (thus) flout(ing) the prescribed power of presentment and, in the process, (denying) the President the power to veto items.” The Article also “dilutes the effectiveness of congressional oversight by giving legislators a stake in the affairs of budget execution, an aspect of governance which they may be called to monitor and scrutinize, (thus) impair(ing) public accountability; …authorizes legislators, who are national officers, to intervene in affairs of purely local nature, despite the existence of capable local institutions, (thus) subvert(ing) genuine local autonomy; and … confers (on) the President the power to appropriate funds intended by law for energy-related purposes only to other purposes he may deem fit, … once more transgress(ing) the principle of non-delegability.” The funds have balloned over successive administrations, and have been criticized as an enabling mechanism for patronage politics in which executive leaders and legislators collude for each others interests. The PDAF currently amounts to an average of P70 million for every congressman and P200 million for every senator. The congressional pork barrel system is at the center of public outrage over revelations that a network of bogus nongovernment organizations had siphoned billions of pesos from the PDAF. The alleged scheme, revolving around detained businesswoman Janet Lim Napoles, also suggests that legislators are involved in a grand kickback scheme. Besides Napoles alleged bogus NGOs, dozens of other NGOs have been reported as used in similar schemes involving many other lawmakers. Some are subject of ongoing audit, and others are being studied by the Justice department for inclusion in subsequent batches of complaints to be filed with the Ombudsman. Senate welcomes decision Reacting to the ruling, Senate President Franklin Drilon issued this statement: “We welcome the decision of the Supreme Court declaring the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) unconstitutional. We will abide by the decision of the Supreme Court.” However, Drilon said the highest court’s decision is moot and academic insofar as the Senate is concerned, as the senators have already waived their use of the remaining PDAF for 2013. “Also, a majority of the senators, at least 15 of us, have already decided to fully delete the PDAF in the 2014 budget, which in effect will lower the country’s budget deficit pegged at P266.2 billion.” With this decision, added Drilon, the Senate is now eyeing the passage of a supplemental budget for 2013. Thereafter, he added, “we will urge the President to certify it as urgent – in the amount of P14.5 billion representing the unutilized PDAF for 2013, which the Executive may use to bolster its relief operations and rehabilitation of areas affected by the recent calamities, particularly typhoon Yolanda, Santi, Labuyo, and as well as the siege in Zamboanga City and the 7.2 magnitude earthquake in Visayas.” Drilon thinks the SC decision reinforces the government’s efforts to reform the country’s political system and affirms the Senate’s position that PDAF must be abolished. “Everybody is stepping in the right direction, as the abolition of PDAF system should be the start of more reforms aimed at curbing corruption and misuse of taxpayers’ money.” PDAF’s abolition will also dismantle the system of political patronage “that has stunted socio-economic development and allowed a few to maintain their political dominance in certain areas,” according to Drilon. He vowed the Senate “will see to it that henceforth, all officials shall adhere to laws and rules and regulations governing the use of public funds.” Giant step for economic justice Meanwhile, Million People March organizer Peachy Rallonza-Bretaña called it “a giant step for economic justice.” Bretaña, whose Million People March petition on Change.org received 16,000 signatures online and 85,700 on sign-up sheets, hailed the high courts ruling. Change.org Philippines campaigns director, Inday Espina-Varona, said the wildfire campaign against pork abuses launched by various individuals and groups on the petition platform gathered more than 47,000 signatures. Also, Leonard Len Dante Clariño, whose group, the Citizens Congress for Good Governance (C2G2), Inc, gathered almost 5,000 signatures also hailed the ruling against the pork barrel system, which their petition called “the root of corruption.” Bretaña said the ruling “validates the three main calls of the MPM petition: 1) Scrap all pork 2) Prosecute all parties that have abused pork, regardless of administration or political affiliation; and 3) Account for all spent pork But she said the fight isnt over yet. Bretaña pointed out that the high court did not just strike down the Priority Development Assistance Fund or legislative pork. “It also declared as unconstitutional fiscal powers exercised on special funds by the Chief Executive beyond their respective special purposes. Supreme Court declares PDAF unconstitutional By: Likha Cuevas-Miel and Ernesto Reyes, InterAksyon November 19, 2013 1:42 PM InterAksyon The online news portal of TV5 (UPDATE 4 - 10 PM) MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court has found the Priority Development Assistance Fund - more commonly referred to as congressional pork barrel funds - unconstitutional, the high courts spokesman Atty. Theodore Te said Tuesday The decision was announced just as the Supreme Court was preparing to hear oral arguments on the Aquino administrations equally controversial Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), which is the subject of a separate complaint, but which critics assail as essentially cut from the same fabric as PDAF. On Tuesday it was announced that the SC justices voted 14-0-1 (with Associate Justice Presbiterio Velasco accounting for the one abstention) to find the PDAF inconsistent with the constitutional mandates of the executive and legislative branches of government. Legal challenges to the PDAF had argued that legislators had built into the legal frameworks for pork barrel funds mechanisms to influence the ultimate spending of the funds, thus creating conflict with Congress power of the purse, and breeding corruption. In a briefing, Atty. Te said the ruling declared illegal the entire 2013 PDAF, all legal provisions of the past and present Congressional Pork Barrel Laws, such as the previous PDAF and Country-wide Development Fund articles and the various Congressional Insertions. This decision was a partial granting of the three consolidated petitions challenging the legality oof the pork barrel system filed by Grego Belgica, Samson Alcantara of the Social Justice Society and Pedrito Nepomuceno. The high tribunal found the intervention, assumption and participation of lawmakers in any of the post-enactment stages in the execution of the budget - such as identification of projects, fund release and/or fund realignment - to be beyond to Congress power of oversight. It also deemed that personal lump-sum allocations to lawmakers, that allow them to fund specific projects that they determine, and all similar acts, to be acts of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of discretion. Moreover, the SC said the phrases in Section 8 of Presidential Decree 910 on the Malampaya Funds and for such other purposes as may be heareafter directed by the President, and the to finance the priority infrastructure development projects under Sec. 12 of PD 1869 (under the President’s Social Fund), as amended by PD 1993, had violated the principle of non-delegability of legislative power. As such, the court ruled to impose a permanent injunction against the PDAF. It first issued a TRO in September. Thus the disbursement /release of the remaining PDAF Funds allocated for the year 2013 as well as for the all previous years and the Malampaya Funds under the aforementioned phrase in PD 910 to be not covered by the Notice of Cash Allocations but only by Special Allotment Release Orders, whether obligated or not, are hereby enjoined, said the decision, penned by Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe. The Court declared as unconstitutional: a) the entire 2013 PDAF Article; b) 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 authorize/d legislators – whether individually or collectively organized into committees – to intervene, assume, or participate in any of the various post-enactment stafes of the budget execution…such as … project identification, modification, fund release or fund realignment, unrelated to the power of congressional oversight; c) all legal provisions of past and present Congressional Pork Barrel laws…which conferred personal, lump-sum allocations to legislators from which they are able to fund specific projects which they themselves determine; d) all informal practices of similar effect, which the Court similarly deems to be acts of grave abuyse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of discretion; and e) 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 PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, for both failing the sufficient standard test in violation of the principle of non-delegability of legislative power.” For lack of proper substantiation, however, the Court denied the petitioners’ prayer that the Executive Secretary and/or the Department of Budget and Management be ordered to provide the public and the Commission on Audit complete lists/schedules or detailed reports related to the availments and utilization of the funds subject of these cases. The Court added that the “petitioners’ access to official documents already available and of public record which are not related to these funds must, however, not be prohibited but merely subjected to the custodian’s reasonable regulations or any valid statutory prohibition on the same.” The denial is without prejudice to a proper mandamus case which the petitioners or the COA may choose to pursue through a separate petition, said the Court. The Court also denied the petitioners’ prayer to order the inclusion of the funds subject of these cases in the budgetary deliberations of Congress, as the same is a matter left to the prerogative of the political branches of government. In three separate instances in the past, the high court affirmed the legality of PDAF -- in 1994, when it was called the Countrywide Development Fund (Philconsa v. Enriquez case); in 2001 - in a resolution on the Andres Sarmiento et al. v. the Treasurer of the Philippines et al; and in 2012 in Lawyers Against Monopoly and Poverty v. the Secretary of Budget and Management et al. Meanwhile, the Court directed all prosecutorial organs of the government to, “within the bounds of reasonable dispatch, investigate and accordingly prosecute all government officials and/or private individuals for possible criminal offenses related to the irregular, improper and/or unlawful disbursement/utilization of all funds under the Pork Barrel System.” Separate opinions were submitted by the Chief Justice (concurring in the result only), Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio and Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen. In striking down the PDAF Article in the 2013 GAA, the Court said it “created a system of budgeting wherein items are not textualized into the appropriations bill (thus) flout(ing) the prescribed power of presentment and, in the process, (denying) the President the power to veto items.” The Article also “dilutes the effectiveness of congressional oversight by giving legislators a stake in the affairs of budget execution, an aspect of governance which they may be called to monitor and scrutinize, (thus) impair(ing) public accountability; …authorizes legislators, who are national officers, to intervene in affairs of purely local nature, despite the existence of capable local institutions, (thus) subvert(ing) genuine local autonomy; and … confers (on) the President the power to appropriate funds intended by law for energy-related purposes only to other purposes he may deem fit, … once more transgress(ing) the principle of non-delegability.” The funds have balloned over successive administrations, and have been criticized as an enabling mechanism for patronage politics in which executive leaders and legislators collude for each others interests. The PDAF currently amounts to an average of P70 million for every congressman and P200 million for every senator. The congressional pork barrel system is at the center of public outrage over revelations that a network of bogus nongovernment organizations had siphoned billions of pesos from the PDAF. The alleged scheme, revolving around detained businesswoman Janet Lim Napoles, also suggests that legislators are involved in a grand kickback scheme. Besides Napoles alleged bogus NGOs, dozens of other NGOs have been reported as used in similar schemes involving many other lawmakers. Some are subject of ongoing audit, and others are being studied by the Justice department for inclusion in subsequent batches of complaints to be filed with the Ombudsman. Senate welcomes decision Reacting to the ruling, Senate President Franklin Drilon issued this statement: “We welcome the decision of the Supreme Court declaring the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) unconstitutional. We will abide by the decision of the Supreme Court.” However, Drilon said the highest court’s decision is moot and academic insofar as the Senate is concerned, as the senators have already waived their use of the remaining PDAF for 2013. “Also, a majority of the senators, at least 15 of us, have already decided to fully delete the PDAF in the 2014 budget, which in effect will lower the country’s budget deficit pegged at P266.2 billion.” With this decision, added Drilon, the Senate is now eyeing the passage of a supplemental budget for 2013. Thereafter, he added, “we will urge the President to certify it as urgent – in the amount of P14.5 billion representing the unutilized PDAF for 2013, which the Executive may use to bolster its relief operations and rehabilitation of areas affected by the recent calamities, particularly typhoon Yolanda, Santi, Labuyo, and as well as the siege in Zamboanga City and the 7.2 magnitude earthquake in Visayas.” Drilon thinks the SC decision reinforces the government’s efforts to reform the country’s political system and affirms the Senate’s position that PDAF must be abolished. “Everybody is stepping in the right direction, as the abolition of PDAF system should be the start of more reforms aimed at curbing corruption and misuse of taxpayers’ money.” PDAF’s abolition will also dismantle the system of political patronage “that has stunted socio-economic development and allowed a few to maintain their political dominance in certain areas,” according to Drilon. He vowed the Senate “will see to it that henceforth, all officials shall adhere to laws and rules and regulations governing the use of public funds.” Giant step for economic justice Meanwhile, Million People March organizer Peachy Rallonza-Bretaña called it “a giant step for economic justice.” Bretaña, whose Million People March petition on Change.org received 16,000 signatures online and 85,700 on sign-up sheets, hailed the high courts ruling. Change.org Philippines campaigns director, Inday Espina-Varona, said the wildfire campaign against pork abuses launched by various individuals and groups on the petition platform gathered more than 47,000 signatures. Also, Leonard Len Dante Clariño, whose group, the Citizens Congress for Good Governance (C2G2), Inc, gathered almost 5,000 signatures also hailed the ruling against the pork barrel system, which their petition called “the root of corruption.” Bretaña said the ruling “validates the three main calls of the MPM petition: 1) Scrap all pork 2) Prosecute all parties that have abused pork, regardless of administration or political affiliation; and 3) Account for all spent pork But she said the fight isnt over yet. Bretaña pointed out that the high court did not just strike down the Priority Development Assistance Fund or legislative pork. “It also declared as unconstitutional fiscal powers exercised on special funds by the Chief Executive beyond their respective special purposes.
Posted on: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:40:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015