G.R. No. 208566.

November 19, 2013 (Case Brief / Digest)

**Title:** Belgica vs. Executive Secretary: The Legal Challenge to the Philippine Pork Barrel
System

**Facts:** This case emerged against the backdrop of significant public outrage prompted
by allegations of misuse and corruption involving the Priority Development Assistance Fund
(PDAF), colloquially known as the “Pork Barrel” system. A series of consolidated petitions
were filed in the Supreme Court of the Philippines, arguing that the PDAF and similar
discretionary funds violated various constitutional principles.

Before reaching the Supreme Court, the controversy had unfolded extensively in both the
legislative and executive branches of the government, as well as in the public sphere. The
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) initiated probes into the alleged misuse of funds, and
the Commission on Audit (CoA) released an audit report highlighting irregularities in the
use of these funds. Amid growing public discontent, petitions were filed by various parties
seeking the judicial review of the PDAF system’s constitutionality.

Petitioners challenged the PDAF for violating the principles of separation of powers, non-
delegability of legislative power, checks and balances, political dynasties, local autonomy,
and accountability. They also contested the executive’s use of the Malampaya Funds and the
Presidential Social Fund for purposes they claimed were unconstitutional.

**Issues:**
1. Whether the PDAF violates the principle of separation of powers by allowing lawmakers
to participate in the execution phase of the budget.
2. Whether the system of lawmakers identifying projects post-enactment constitutes undue
delegation of legislative power.
3. Whether the PDAF impairs the President’s power of item veto and contravenes the
principle of checks and balances.
4. Whether the PDAF and the Presidential Pork Barrel promote political dynasties, contrary
to national policy.
5. Whether the PDAF infringes upon local autonomy by allowing legislators to intervene in
purely local matters.
6. Whether the provision allowing the President to use the Malampaya Funds “for such
other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President” constitutes an undue
delegation of legislative power.

**Court’s Decision:**

© 2024 - batas.org | 1
 G.R. No. 208566. November 19, 2013 (Case Brief / Digest)

The Supreme Court declared the PDAF, the Presidential Pork Barrel relating to the
Malampaya Funds and the Presidential Social Fund, unconstitutional in several respects:
1. The PDAF system violates the principle of separation of powers by granting lawmakers
post-enactment authority in the implementation of projects, effectively allowing them to
engage in executive functions.
2. The system constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power by allowing individual
lawmakers to identify projects for funding after the passage of the appropriations law.
3. The PDAF system impairs the President’s power of item veto, undermining the system of
checks and balances.
4. The Court declined to rule directly on the promotion of political dynasties and the impact
on the power of impeachment as these issues were not deemed justiciable or ripe for
judicial review.
5. The PDAF and similar discretionary funds infringe upon local autonomy by allowing
national lawmakers to override local development plans and priorities.
6. The phrase in PD 910 allowing the President to direct the use of Malampaya Funds “for
such other purposes” without sufficient standards was declared unconstitutional for
constituting undue delegation of legislative power. However, the provisions on the use of
the Malampaya Funds specifically for energy resource development remained valid. As for
the Presidential Social Fund, its constitutionality was not explicitly discussed due to
amendments through PD 1993.

**Doctrine:**
1. **Separation of Powers and Non-Delegability of Legislative Power:** The Constitution
vests exclusive power to appropriate public funds in Congress, and such power cannot be
delegated to, nor exercised by, individual legislators or the Executive post-enactment.
2. **Checks and Balances and Item Veto:** Any system that prevents the President from
exercising his power to veto specific items in appropriations laws violates the constitutional
principle of checks and balances.
3. **Local Autonomy:** The Constitution guarantees local autonomy and prohibits national
lawmakers from overriding local development priorities through post-enactment
identification of projects in the national budget.

**Class Notes:**
1. **Separation of Powers:** Ensures that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of
government operate independently and without interference in each other’s functions.
– **Key Principle:** Legislators cannot intervene in the execution phase of the budget as it
constitutes an exercise of executive power.

© 2024 - batas.org | 2
 G.R. No. 208566. November 19, 2013 (Case Brief / Digest)

2. **Non-Delegability of Legislative Power:** Legislative power to appropriate must be

exercised by Congress as a body and cannot be delegated to individual members or the
Executive.
– **Key Principle:** Post-enactment identification of projects by legislators constitutes an
undue delegation of legislative power.
3. **Checks and Balances:** The Constitution provides mechanisms, including the
President’s item-veto power, to ensure no single branch of government can dominate the
others.
– **Key Principle:** The system of appropriations must allow the President to exercise his
item-veto power effectively.
4. **Local Autonomy:** Refers to the constitutional guarantee that local government units
must have the freedom to pursue their own development plans and priorities.
– **Key Principle:** National lawmakers should not intervene in matters of local
development that subvert local autonomy.

**Historical Background:**
The case represents a significant moment in Philippine legal history, addressing long-
standing issues surrounding the constitutionality of discretionary fund allocations, known as
the “Pork Barrel.” It reflects the tension between the need for lawmaker discretion in
funding local projects and the constitutional principles that safeguard against abuse of
legislative power, ensure local autonomy, and maintain the balance of power among the
branches of government. The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the PDAF and certain
uses of the Presidential Pork Barrel funds marked a pivotal move towards reinforcing these
constitutional safeguards and redirecting the conversation towards more transparent and
accountable budgeting processes.

© 2024 - batas.org | 3