Case Digest by Darwin Clemente

Belgica, et. al. vs. Executive Sec., et. al.

Facts:
1. Aug. 28, 2013, Alcantara, the President of Social Justice Society filed a petition for prohibition under Rule 65 seeking that the Pork Barrel
System be declared unconstitutional.
2. Sept. 3, 2013, Belgica, et. al filed an urgent petition for Certiorari and Prohibition, with prayer for the immediate issuance of TRO and that the
Pork Barrel System be declared unconstitutional.
3. Sept. 5, 2013, Nepumoceno filed a petition seeking PDAF to be declared unconstitutional.
4. Public respondents were ordered to comment.

Issues:
1. Procedural: (a) WON there is an actual and justiciable issue (b) WON the issues are matters of policy not subject to judicial review (c) WON
petitioners have legal standing (d) Res Judicata and Stare Decisis.
2. Substantive: (a) WON the phrase and for such other purposes as directed by the President constitutes undue delegation of legislative power

Held:
WON there is an actual and justiciable issue. Yes. The issues complies with legal requisites for judicial inquiries (a) there must be an actual case or
controversy (b) the person challenging the act must have legal standing (c) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible
opportunity (d) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.

There exists actual controversy the challenged funds and the provision allowing for their utilization are currently existing and operational; hence,
there exists an immediate or threatened injury to petitioners as a result of the unconstitutional use of public funds.

Mootness- Court may decide case (1) if there is grave violation of Constitution (2) involves paramount concern for public interest (3) when the
constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles.

Political Question Doctrine (definition) the Courts will not intrude into areas committed to the other branches of government. It refers to those
questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary
authority has been delegated to the Legislature or Executive Branch. Here, there is no political issue, rather, what is at issues is the intrinsic
constitutionality of the Pork Barrel System.

Locus Standi whether a party alleges such personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which
sharpens the presentation of the issues upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions. Petitioners have
standing as citizen-taxpayer. Matters raised may be classified as matters of transcendental importance, of overarching significance to society, or of
paramount public interest.

Res Judicata matter judged which requires identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action. This does not apply, the 1994 CDF and 2004
PDAF involving Philconsa and LAMP (the latter case was a dismissal on technicality, not on merits).

Stare Decisis means to follow past precedents. Does not apply as the previous cases used as reference were dismissed on mere technicality.

Pork Barrel as the collective body of rules and practices that govern the manner by which lump sum, discretionary funds, primarily intended for
local projects, are utilized through the respective participation of the Legislative and Executive Branches of government.

Two Forms of Pork Barrel:

Congressional discretionary funds wherein legislators, either individually or collectively organized into committees, are able to effectively control
certain aspects of funds utilization through various post enactment measures.

Presidential discretionary funds which allows the President to determine the manner of its utilization.

Congressional Post Enactment Measures (limits)

1. Scrutiny based on congress power of appropriation and budget hearing.
2. Investigation and monitoring of the implementation of laws pursuant to the power of congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation.

Here, Legislators were accorded post enactment authority in the areas of fund release and realignment.

PDAF is unconstitutional since it allows legislators to wield any form of post enactment authority in the implementation and enforcement of budget,
unrelated to congressional oversight. It violates non-delegability since legislators are effectively allowed to individually exercise the power of
appropriation which is supposed to be lodged with Congress as a body.

Two Tests of Valid Delegation:

Completeness Test when the law sets forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out, or implemented by the delegate.
Sufficient Standard Test - provides adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to map out the boundaries of the delegates authority and prevent
the delegation from running riot.

SARO not really a disbursement but only evidence of existing obligation which DBM can revoke.