BELGICA V OCHOA November 19, 2013 G.R. No 208566

BELGICA V OCHOA November 19, 2013 G.R.
No 208566
Facts:
HISTORY OF CONGRESSIONAL PORK BARREL
*The term “pork barrel”, is a political parlance of American-English origin, which refers to an
appropriation of government spending meant for localized projects and secured solely to bring
money to a representative’s district.
*The earliest form of the pork barrel system is found in Section 3 of Act 3044, also known as the
Public Work Acts of 1922. Under this provision, release of funds and realignment of unexpended
portions of an item or appropriation were subject to the approval of a joint committee elected by
Senate and the House of Representatives. In 1950, members of Congress, by virtue of being
representatives of the people also became involved in project identification.
*The pork barrel system was temporarily discontinued when Martial Law was declared and
reappeared in 1982 through an item in the General Appropriations Act (“GAA”) called “Support
for Local Development Projects” (“SLDP”). SLDP started giving off lump-sum allocations to
individual legislators. The SLDP also began to cover not only public works projects but also
covered other projects such as those which would fall under education, health and livelihood
*After the EDSA People Power Revolution and the restoration of democracy, the pork barrel
was revived through the “Mindanao Development Fund” and the “Visayas Development Fund”
*In 1990, the pork barrel was renamed “Countrywide Development Fund” (“CDF”). The CDF
was meant to cover small local infrastructure and other priority community projects. CDF Funds
were with the approval of the President, released directly to implementing agencies subject to the
submission of the required list of projects and activities. Senators and congressmen could
identify any kind of project from “hard projects” such as roads, buildings and bridges to “soft
projects” such as textbooks, medicines and scholarships.
*In 1993, the CDF was further modified such that the release of funds was to be made upon the
submission of the list of projects and activities identified by individual legislators. The CDF also
contained the same provisions from 1994-1996 except that the Department of Budget and
Management was required to submit reports to the Senate Committee on Finance and the House
Committee on Appropriations regarding the releases made from the funds.
*Congressional Insertions or “CI’s” were another form of congressional pork barrel aside from
the CDF, Examples of CI’s include the DepEd School Building Fund, the Congressional
Initiative Allocations, and the Public Works Fund, among others.
PORK BARREL MISUSE
*In 1996 Marikina City Representatives Romeo Candozo revealed that huge sums of money
regularly went into the pockets of legsilators in the form of “kickbacks”.
*In 2004, several concerned citizens sought the nullification of the PDAF but the Supreme Court
dismissed the petition for lack of evidentiary basis regarding illegal misuse of the PDAF also in
the form of kickbacks.
*In July 2013, the National Bureau of Investigation probed the allegation that a syndicate
defrauded the government of 10 Billion pesos using funds from the pork barrel of lawmakers and
various government agencies for scores of “ghost projects”.
*Whistle-blowers also alleged that at least 900 million pesos from the Malampaya funds had
gone into a dummy NGO
ISSUES
Procedural Issue
-WON (a) the issues raised in the consolidated petitions involve an actual and justiciable
controversy (b) the issues raised are matters of policy not subject to judicial review, (c)
petitioners have legal standing to sue (d) previous decisions of the Court bar the re-litigation of
the constitutionality of the Pork Barrel System.
Substantive Issue
-WON the 2013 PDAF Article and all other Congressional Pork Barrel laws are unconstitutional
for violating the constitutional provisions on (a) separation of powers, (b) non-delegabiliy of
legislative power, (c) checks and balances, (d) accountability (e) political dynasties and (f) local
autonomy.
RULING
Procedural

BELGICA V OCHOA November 19, 2013 G.R. No 208566

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BELGICA V OCHOA November 19, 2013 G.R. No 208566

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BELGICA V OCHOA November 19, 2013 G.R. No 208566

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BELGICA V OCHOA November 19, 2013 G.R.

You might also like