Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

Based from the Concurring opinion of Carpio J.

With regard to the Unconstitionality of the PDAF:


This is again another time in our nations history !hen this court is called upon to resol"e a
gra"e national crisis. The corruption in the por# Barrel system$ as star#ly documented in the
commission on audit report on the %&&'(%&&) priority de"elopment assistance fund$ * has sho!n
that there is something terri+ly !rong in the appropriation and e,penditure of pu+lic funds. Ta,es
from the hard(earned !ages of !or#ing class filipinos are +ra-enly looted in the implementation of
the armual appropriation la!s. The Filipino people are in despair$ groping for a !ay to end the
por#(+arrel .ystem.The priority de"elopment assistance fund /pdaf0$ also #no!n as the
congressional por# +arrel$ is a lump(sum appropriation in the annual general appropriations act or
the national +udget. 1t is used to fund priority de"elopment programs as !ell as the pro2ects of the
go"ernment. The por# +arrel funds account for a little o"er * percent of the national +udget. Php
%&& million and php '& million are allocated a year for each senator and mem+er of the house of
representati"es$ respecti"ely.
Priority +udgets and programs may +e in the form of 3hard4 pro2ects or infrastructure
pro2ects li#e roads$ +ridges$ school +uildings$ and the li#e. These may also +e in the form of 3soft
pro2ects4 or non(infrastructure pro2ects li#e scholarships and li"elihood programs. For
representati"es$ funds are split into php 5& million each of the representati"es por# +arrel for 3soft
programs4 and php 6& million for 3hard programs4. For senators$ their por# +arrel is e"enly split in
half for 3soft4 and 3hard4 pro2ects. 7egislators refer to a menu of 3hard4 and 3soft4 pro2ects !hich
can +e funded using congressional allocations to decide on !hat pro2ects to identify for their
constituents. 1t is contained in the special pro"isions of the annual general appropriations act /gaa0.
7egislators can pic# from the follo!ing pro2ects:
8ducation /scholarships0
9ealth /financial assistance to indigent patients$ purchase of medical e:uipment0
7i"elihood; social ser"ices
<ural electrification
Water supply /construction of !ater system$ installation of pipes;pumps;tan#s0
Financial assistance /for specific programs and pro2ects of local go"ernment units /lgus00
Pu+lic !or#s /roads$ +ridges$ flood control$ school +uildings$ hospitals$ health facilities$ pu+lic
mar#ets$ multi(purpose +uildings and pa"ements0
1rrigation
Peace and order /purchase of firetruc#s and firefighting e:uipment$ patrol "ehicles$ prisoners= "ans$
multica+s$ police patrol e:uipment$ construction;repair of fire stations$ police stations$ 2ails0
9ousing
Forest management
Arts and culture
As these re:uests cannot +e accomodated at the same time$ a staff mem+er of each legislator
compiles re:uests +y his or her constituents and the office ser"ices them according to the time these
!ere su+mitted to them and the priority.
The summary of pdaf releases for the fiscal year %&*5 amounted to php **$>?*$>>&$???. Php
'$))@$@@5$??? !as used +y district representati"es$ php *$)&'$@&&$&&& +y partylist representati"es
and php *$@''$%?'$&&& +y the upper house.
The present petitions test the limits of our constitution ( !hether this gra"e national crisis can +e
resol"ed !ithin$ or outside$ the present Constitution.
For resolution in the present cases are the follo!ing threshold issues:
*. Whether article A1B of <epu+lic Act Co. *&5>% or the %&*5 Deneral appropriations act /gaa0$ on
7eano$ C-arina Janis <haetia Atty. Desmondo
.unday *&(*% 7egal Writing *
the priority de"elopment assistance funds /pdaf0$ "iolates the principle of separation of po!ersE
%. Whether the lump(sum pdaf F negates the presidents Constitutional line(item "eto po!erE
5. Whether the phrase Gfor such other purposes as may +e hereafter directed +y the presidentG in
section ? of presidential decree no. )*&$ on the use of the malampaya fund$ constitutes an undue
delegation of 7egislati"e po!erE and
6. Whether the phrase Gto finance the priority infrastructure De"elopment pro2ects and to finance
the restoration of damaged or destroyed Facilities due to calamities$ as may +e directed and
authori-ed +y the , , , President$G in section *%$ title i" of presidential decree no. *?@)$ as
Amended$ on the use of the go"ernments share in the gross earnings of the Philippine amusement
and gaming corporation /pagcor0$ li#e!ise Constitutes an undue delegation of legislati"e po!er.
.tanding to sue and propriety of the petitions$ Petitioners filed the present petitions for certiorari
and prohi+ition in their capacity as ta,payers and filipino citi-ens$ challenging the Constitutionality
of the pdaf pro"isions in the %&*5 gaa and certain Pro"isions in presidential decree nos. )*& and
*?@).
As ta,payers and ordinary citi-ens$ petitioners possess locus standi to +ring these suits !hich
indisputa+ly in"ol"e the dis+ursement of pu+lic funds. As !e held in pascual ". .ecretary of pu+lic
!or#s$ ta,payers$ such as petitioners in the present petitions$ ha"e Gsufficient interest in pre"enting
The illegal e,penditures of moneys raised +y ta,ation and may therefore :uestion the
constitutionality of statutes re:uiring e,penditure of pu+lic moneys.G 7i#e!ise$ in la!yers against
monopoly and po"erty /lamp0 ". .ecretary of +udget and management$ !e declared that Gta,payers
ha"e +een allo!ed to sue !here there is a claim that pu+lic funds are illegally dis+ursed or that
pu+lic money is +eing deflected to any improper purpose$ or that pu+lic funds are !asted through
the enforcement of an in"alid or unconstitutional la!.G The present petitions also raise constitutional
issues of transcendental importance to the nation$ 2ustifying their immediate resolution +y this
Court. Horeo"er$ the special ci"il actions of certiorari and prohi+ition are proper remedial "ehicles
to test the constitutionality of statutes.
.pecial pro"isions of the %&*5 pdaf "iolate the separation of po!ers. Under our constitution$
go"ernment po!er is di"ided among the three co(e:ual +ranches: e,ecuti"e$ legislature$ and
2udiciary. Well(entrenched. 1n our 2urisdiction is the principle of separation of po!ers$ !hich
ordains that each of the three great +ranches of go"ernment is supreme in the e,ercise of its
functions !ithin its o!n constitutionally allocated sphere. 7a!ma#ing +elongs to congress$
implementing the la!s to the e,ecuti"e$ and settling legal disputes to the 2udiciary. Any
encroachment on the functions of a co(e:ual +ranch +y the other +ranches "iolates the principle of
.eparation of po!ers$ and is thus unconstitutional. 1n Beng-on ". Drilon$ the court declared:
1t cannot +e o"erstressed that in a constitutional go"ernment such as ours$ the rule of la! must
pre"ail. The constitution is the +asic and paramount la! to !hich all other la!s must conform and
to !hich all persons including the highest official of this land must defer. From this cardinal
postulate$ it follo!s that the three +ranches of go"ernment must discharge their respecti"e functions
!ithin the limits of authority conferred +y the constitution. Under the principle of separation of
po!ers$ Ceither congress$ the president nor the 2udiciary may encroach on fields allocated to the
other +ranches of go"ernment. The legislature is generally limited to the enactment of la!s$ the
e,ecuti"e to the enforcement of la!s and the 2udiciary to their interpretation and application to
cases and contro"ersies. 1n the present petitions$ the court is faced !ith issues of paramount
1mportance as these issues in"ol"e the core po!ers of the e,ecuti"e and the
7egislature..pecifically$ the petitions raise :uestions on the 8,ecuti"es constitutional po!er to
implement the la!s and the legislatures constitutional po!er to appropriate. The latter necessarily
7eano$ C-arina Janis <haetia Atty. Desmondo
.unday *&(*% 7egal Writing %
in"ol"es the Presidents constitutional po!er to "eto line(items in appropriation la!s.
Under the constitution$ the president su+mits e"ery year a proposed Cational e,penditures program
/nep0 to congress. The nep ser"es as +asis for the annual general appropriations act /gaa0 to +e
enacted +y congress. This is pro"ided in the constitution$ as follo!s:
The president shall su+mit to the congress !ithin thirty days from the opening of e"ery regular
session$ as the +asis of the general appropriations +ill$ a +udget of e,penditures and sources of
financing$ including receipts from e,isting and proposed re"enue measures. While the President
proposes the e,penditures program to congress$ it is congress that e,ercises the po!er to
appropriate and enact the gaa. The Constitution states that Gall appropriation , , , shall originate
e,clusi"ely in the house of representati"es$ +ut the senate may propose or concur !ith
amendments.G The constitution li#e!ise mandates$ Gno money shall +e paid out of the treasury
e,cept in pursuance of an appropriation made +y la!.G
The administrati"e code of *)?' defines GappropriationG as Gan authori-ation made +y la! or other
legislati"e enactment directing payment out of go"ernment funds under specified conditions or for
specified purposes.GThus$ the po!er to appropriate is the e,clusi"e legislati"e po!er to direct +y
la! the payment of go"ernment funds under specified conditions or specified purposes. The
appropriation must state the specific purpose of the payment of go"ernment funds. The
appropriation must also necessarily state the specific amount since it is a directi"e to pay out
Do"ernment funds. Ince the appropnat!ns +ill is signed into la!$ its implementation +ecomes the
e,clusi"e function of the president. The constitution states$ Gthe e,ecuti"e po!er shall +e "ested in
the president.G The constitution has "ested .the e,ecuti"e po!er solely in the president and to no
one else in Do"ernment. The constitution also mandates that the president Gshall ensure that the
la!s +e faithfully e,ecuted.G The president cannot refuse to e,ecute the la! not only +ecause he is
constitutionally mandated to ensure its e,ecution$ +ut also +ecause he has ta#en a constitutionally
prescri+ed solemn oath to Gfaithfully and conscientiouslyG e,ecute the la!.To e,ercise the e,ecuti"e
po!er effecti"ely$ the president must necessarily control the entire e,ecuti"e +ranch. Thus$ the
constitution Pro"ides$ Gthe president shall ha"e control of all the e,ecuti"e departments$ Bureaus$
and offices.G The constitution does not e,empt any e,ecuti"e Iffice from the presidents control.
The gaa is a la!. The implementation of the gaa +elongs 8,clusi"ely to the president$ and cannot +e
e,ercised +y congress. The President cannot share !ith the legislature$ its committees or mem+ers
the Po!er to implement the gaa. The legislature$ its committees or mem+ers cannot e,ercise
functions "ested in the president +y the constitutionE Ither!ise$ there !ill +e a "iolation of the
separation of po!ers.
The legislature$ its committees or mem+ers cannot also e,ercise any "eto po!er o"er actions or
decisions of e,ecuti"e departments$ +ureaus or Iffices +ecause this !ill di"est the president of
control o"er the e,ecuti"e Agencies. Control means the po!er to affirm$ modify or re"erse$ and
e"en to Pre(empt$ the actions or decisions of e,ecuti"e agencies or their officials. Any pro"ision of
la! re:uiring the concurrence of the legislature$ its Committees or mem+ers +efore an e,ecuti"e
agency can e,ercise its Functions "iolates the presidents control o"er e,ecuti"e agencies$ and is
Thus unconstitutional. commences from the proposal su+mitted +y the president to congress$ it is
The latter !hich concludes the e,ercise +y crafting an appropriation act it Hay deem +eneficial to
the nation$ +ased on its o!n 2udgment$ !isdom and purposes. 7i#e any other piece of legislation$
the appropriation act may then +e suscepti+le to o+2ection from the +ranch tas#ed to implement
1t$ +y !ay of a presidential "eto. Thereafter$ +udget e,ecution comes under the domain of the
e,ecuti"e +ranch !hich deals !ith the operational aspects of the cycle including the allocation and
release of funds earmar#ed for "arious pro2ects. .imply put$ from the regulation of fund releases$
the implementation of payment schedules and up to the actual spending of the funds specified in the
7eano$ C-arina Janis <haetia Atty. Desmondo
.unday *&(*% 7egal Writing 5
la!$ the e,ecuti"e ta#es the !heel.
A,,.
The supreme court declared as unconstitutional the legislators contro"ersial por# +arrel fund #no!n
as the priority de"elopment assistance fund /pdaf0.
The high tri+unal also struc# do!n as illegal pro"isions in t!o la!s that allo! the president to use
the malampaya fund and the presidents social fund for purposes +eyond the mandate of the funds.
The "ote against the pdaf !as *6(&$ according to supreme court spo#esman theodore te. Associate
2ustice pres+itero "elasco 2r inhi+ited from the case +ecause his son is a congressman. The ponente$
or !riter of the decision$ is associate 2ustice estela +erna+e$ an appointee of president +enigno
a:uino iii.
The "erdict reads:
3in "ie! of the constitutional "iolations discussed in this decision$ the court here+y declares as
unconstitutional: /a0 the entire %&*5 pdaf articleE /b0 all legal pro"isions of past and present
congressional por# +arrel la!s$ such as the pre"ious pdaf and cdf articles and the "arious
congressional insertions$ !hich authori-e;d legislatorsJ!hether indi"idually or collecti"ely
organi-ed into committees(((to inter"ene$ assume or participate in any of the "arious post(
enactment stages of the +udget e,ecution$ such as +ut not limited to the areas of pro2ect
identification$ modification and re"ision of pro2ect identification$ fund release and;or fund
realignment$ unrelated to the po!er of congressional o"ersightE /c0 all legal pro"isions of past and
present congressional por# +arrel la!s$ such as the pre"ious pdaf and cdf articles and the "arious
congressional insertions$ !hich confer;red personal$ lump(sum allocations to legislators from !hich
they are a+le to fund specific pro2ects !hich they themsel"es determineE /d0 all informal practices of
similar import and effect$ !hich the court similarly deems to +e acts of gra"e a+use of discretion
amounting to lac# or e,cess of discretionE and /e0 the phrases /*0 3and for such other purposes as
may +e hereafter directed +y the president4 under section ? of presidential decree no. )*& and /%0
3to finance the priority infrastructure de"elopment pro2ects4 under section *% of pd *?@)$ as
amended +y pd *))5$ for +oth failing the sufficient standard test in "iolation of the principle of non(
delega+ility of legislati"e po!er.G
Halampaya and presidents por#
1n its decision$ the court stopped the release of money from the malampaya fund that is not for
energy pro2ects and acti"ities. 1t struc# as illegal the phrase Gand for such other purposes as may
hereafter +e directed +y the president$G !hich is stated in presidential decree )*&$ or the la! that is
the +asis of go"ernments use of re"enues from national resources such as gas.
The 2ustices also disallo!ed the release of parts of the presidents social fund that are used Gto
finance...priority infrastructure de"elopment pro2ects$G as stated in presidential decree *?@).
Critics ha"e said these phrases are discretionary in nature.
The court said they !ere stri#ing do!n these portions of the t!o la!s Gfor failing the self(sufficient
standard test in "iolation of the principle of non(delega+ility of legislati"e po!er.G
The court also ordered all prosecutors to in"estigate and prosecute all go"ernment officials and
pri"ate indi"iduals Gfor possi+le criminal offenses related to the irregular$ improper and;or unla!ful
dis+ursement;utili-ation of funds under the por# +arrel system.G
With the sc decision$ the temporary restraining order on the pdaf imposed on septem+er *&$ %&*5
has +een declared permanent.
The remaining %&*5 pdaf allocations yet to +e released to la!ma#ers$ as !ell as portions of the psf
and malampaya funds declared unconstitutional$ !ill +e returned to the go"ernments coffers
Ahead of the sc decision$ +oth cham+ers of congress !ai"ed their right to their fro-en pdaf for %&*5
and authori-ed the president to use it as a calamity fund.
1n an am+ush inter"ie! shortly after the decision !as announced$ +udget secretary +utch a+ad said
he has yet to read the sc decision as of posting time +ut the go"ernment is studying ho! the funds
7eano$ C-arina Janis <haetia Atty. Desmondo
.unday *&(*% 7egal Writing 6
!ill +e used.
Hean!hile$ the sc denied the petitioners re:uest for the +udget department to pro"ide a detailed list
of ho! the pdaf$ the malampaya and psf fund !as utili-ed and a"ailed since the pu+lic already has
access to the documents.
Follo!ing pu+lic uproar o"er the multi+illion por# +arrel scam$ petitioners !ent to the high court to
:uestion the legal +asis that allo!ed la!ma#ers to participate in the e,ecution of pro2ects e"en after
the +udget is passed.
8arlier$ 2ustice carpio called the pdaf Gillegal on its faceG and Griddled !ith unconstitutionality.G
9e said the %&*5 general appropriations act /gaa0 "iolated the constitution !hen it ga"e ca+inet
secretaries the president=s po!er to realign sa"ings and re:uired the concurrence of +oth cham+ers
of congress to realign and release funds.
1n the past$ the high court upheld the systems constitutionality. But the pdaf in the %&*5 national
+udget !as Ga different animal$G carpio earlier said$ +ecause it made the identification of a
la!ma#ers pro2ect GmandatoryG rather than Grecommendatory.G
The por# +arrel scam in"ol"ing the alledged misuse of atleast @ +illion of la!ma#ers discretionary
funds par#ed massi"e protests to a+olish the system. The !oman at the center of the scam$ 2anet lim
napoles$ is detained o"er serious illegal detention charges and also faces a plunder complaint +efore
the office of the om+udsman.
1n its decision$ the high court also ordered the in"estigation of go"ernment officials !ho may ha"e
misused the funds.
8arlier$ the house of representati"es decided to scrap the pdaf from the proposed %&*6 gaa and
realign its p%>.% +illion allocation to @ e,ecuti"e agencies.
Host senators$ mean!hile$ are leaning to!ards completely deleting their pdaf allocation for %&*6
from the +udget.
.crapping the priority de"elopment assistance funds /pdaf0 of la!ma#ers is not enough to stop the
misuse of ta,payers= money. According to former chief 2ustice reynato punto$ there has to +e
another la! that !ill go"ern the use of pu+lic funds after the pdaf has +een scrapped.
This$ in essence$ is !hy puno is pushing for a people=s initiati"e that !ill craft a ne! la! go"erning
the use of pu+lic funds.
.pea#ing to anc=s headstart$ the former chief 2ustice said he !ants to organi-e a people=s congress
that !ill craft ne! legislation to replace the por# +arrel system.
3!e in"ite the legal e,perts. We in"ite e,perts in +udget(ma#ing. We in"ite some past and present
legislators. We in"ite people from the academe and all the patriotic filipinos !ho are see#ing an
effecti"e solution to this pro+lem. Dapat tayong +umalang#as ng isang +atas na mag+i+igay ng
termination sa pro+lema na ito so !e need all the intellectual capa+ility of all filipino patriots$4 he
said.
Puno reiterated that the present por# +arrel system in the country is e"il due to lac# of safeguards.
3ang por# +arrel system as practiced is not good$ it is e"il. 1t means the por# +arrel system is not
peculiar to the philippines. 1t is a por# +arrel system from the us +ut !e don=t see the scandals here
also happening in the us +ut it is the same por# +arrel. Ang dapat nating ga!in ay put in the
restrictions$4 he said.
Puno=s call for a peoples in itiati"e has recei"ed "arious reactions from different sectors including
se"eral senators and mem+ers of the academe.
Presidential spo#esman ed!in lacierda said any mo"e for a peoples initiati"e is premature since the
supreme court is already hearing oral arguments on petitions :uestioning the legality of the pdaf.
7a!yer harry ro:ue said gathering the >.' million signatures or the *& percent of all registered
"oters in the country as re:uired +y la! for a people=s initiati"e is 2ust one part of a long and tedious
process. 9e said that after the gathering of signatures$ the commission of elections !ill ha"e to
"erify the signatures +ased on the +oo# of "oters$ "oters= list and "oter ids.
7eano$ C-arina Janis <haetia Atty. Desmondo
.unday *&(*% 7egal Writing >
After "erification$ a resolution !ill +e issued and pu+lished in national dailies to inform the pu+lic
of a forthcoming referendum. Boters !ill then ha"e choose !hether or not to support the ne! la!.
Bince la-atin$ e,ecuti"e director of the transparency and accounta+ility net!or#$ earlier said he
does not see the need for crafting ne! legislation to replace pdaf.
3di #o #asi ma#ita #ung #ailangan pa ng pani+agong +atas. .imple lang naman yun$ alisin sa
Kgeneral appropriations actL yung pdaf para !ala nang poder dun yung mga congressman$4 he said.
Co la! means a "acuum. Puno$ ho!e"er$ re2ected suggestions that a people=s initiati"e is
premature.
9e said a people=s initiati"e can still +e tac#led e"en if congress decides to scrap the pdaf or if the
supreme court declares it as unconstitutional.
3if !e study the constitution$ !alang sinasa+ing ganyan na pag#a may petisyon sa supreme court
yung people=s initiati"e ay dapat maghintay. These remedies in congress$ supreme court and the
people=s initiati"e can go hand in hand. There are no inconsistencies in the approaches$4 he said.
9e also disagreed !ith comments that scrapping the pdaf !ill sol"e the pro+lem of fund misuse.
3if the sc rules that the pdaf is unconstitutional$ !hat that means is that the pdaf la! !ill +e struc#
do!n +ut it lea"es a "acuum. What is the la!M There !ill +e no la!. Congress may then decide a
ne! la! and that is !hat the people=s initiati"e !ill do$ it !ill design a la!. The declaration of
unconstitutionality !ill only stri#e it do!n. The sc cannot ma#e a ne! la!$ it !ill only interpret the
la!$4 he said.
The former chief 2ustice said he does not agree !ith the mo"e of the ce+u coalition against the por#
+arrel system to start gathering signatures for the people=s initiati"e.
9e noted that gathering signatures is premature since no proposed legislation has +een crafted yet.
3gusto #o sana mana!agan dito sa grupo sa ce+u. 9indi #o alam itong grupo na ito pero mu#hang
nagpapapirma na sila e di po tama yun. Nailangan meron munang proposition$ yung +inalang#as na
+atas. Oun ang i(e(endorso nila e.=
3ang pana!agan #o nga$ magpulong tayo at mag#aisa tayo #ung ano yung propositionat gaga!in
natin$ ano yung +a+alang#asin natin na +atas at yan ang papipirmahin mo sa taum+ayan. Ano yung
pinipirmahan nilaM Ano yung ini(endorso nilaM Hu#hang adelantado yun.4
.afeguards on malampaya funds
Puno said the people=s initiati"e can also study if re"enues from the malampaya natural gas pro2ect
in pala!an should still +e treated as an off(+udget item.
Based on a presidential decree under the marcos administration$ the president has discretionary
po!er o"er the use of the malampaya funds.
3there are some !ho say that !e should e,amine purpose of malampaya fund. Ang panana! #o (
hindi dapat mag#aroon ang anumang +ranch ng go"ernment ng a+solute po!er. There should +e a
limitation. There should +e no off +udget funds. 7agyan ng safeguards ito$4 he said.
9e also said one consideration is using the malampaya funds for other pro2ects not related to energy.
3tingnan natin ang purpose ng e,isting la! at #ung ma+a+ago natin. 1t says this should go to energy.
But !hat are the priorities of our country no!M To help the poor. With the si-e of this fund$ !hy not
spend it on students$ hospitals and other thingsM4 9e said.
Puno ac#no!ledged that pushing for a people=s initiati"e !ould +e a difficult +ut !orth!hile
endea"or.
3ga!in natin ito sa pamamagitan ng +atas so that e"en if a:uino is gone$ the la! !ill still +e there.
1t !ill go"ern present dispensation and e"en future go"ernance$4 he said.
9e added: 3no+ody has a monopoly of !isdom. Co+ody has a franchise of #no!ledge and
patriotism. 1f you don=t ta#e a shot$ or dare to ta#e a shot$ you !ill al!ays miss the shot.4
C. Palace shrugs off sc petitions: dap legal$ pdaf a+olished
Hean!hile$ malacaPang shrugged off the pending cases against go"ernment dis+ursements$ saying
the dis+ursement acceleration program /dap0 is legal !hile the priority de"elopment assistance fund
7eano$ C-arina Janis <haetia Atty. Desmondo
.unday *&(*% 7egal Writing @
/pdaf0 has already +een a+olished.
.upreme court associate 2ustice antonio carpio said pdaf on its face is unconstitutional +ecause the
president cannot share the po!er to utili-e pu+lic funds !ith the legislati"e +ranch.
9e said another pro"ision in the +udget that may +e deemed unconstitutional is the po!er of ca+inet
secretaries to realign funds$ saying only the president can do so. The a:uino administration has
defined dap as realigned sa"ings.
But during a press conference at the palace on !ednesday$ presidential spo#esperson ed!in lacierda
said the pdaf has already +een a+olished and should not +e an issue.
Gnasa+i na po ni pangulong a:uino na na(a+olish na po ang pdaf. Wala na po KpdafL sa proposed
+udget of %&*6$G he said.
Gang concern siguro ngayon ng supreme court$ ang concern ng mga petitioners... they !ant to ma#e
sure that it !ill no longer +e enacted in some other time$G he added.
1n the case of the dap and the dis+ursement of malampaya fund$ he said they are confident that they
can defend it.
Gang dap po #asi realigned sa"ings po yan e. Nung tatanungin niyo po ang constitutionality niyan$
nasa +atas po yan$G he said.
The palace official li#e!ise said ca+inet secretaries can realign sa"ings +ecause they are alter(egos
of the president.
Gso$ if you=re referring to the realigning of the sa"ings$ the president appro"es the realignment of
the sa"ings$ and that=s under the constitution$G he said.
As for former senator p.lacsons statement that he !as not a!are of the e,istence of dap$ lacierda
said this does not mean the dap did not e,ist.
G!ith due respect to senator lacson$ the fact that he does not #no! dap as a term does not denigrate
the fact that Kit e,istedL prior to his #no!ledge$G he said$ adding that it cannot +e seen in the +udget
since it is not an item +ut a mechanism meant to stimulate the economy.
9e said the president e"en announced a p'%(+illion stimulus pac#age in %&**$ a product of the
realignment of go"ernment sa"ings.
Gsiguro hindi nila alam yung term na yunQ pero realigned sa"ings po yun$G he said.
Thus$ PDAF may +e declared Unconstitutional +ut the people or the Ta, Payers are entitled to the
ser"ices their Do"ernment ought to gi"e them. This is the GBenefit Theory in Ta,ation 7a!G !hich
means that the Citi-ens of a .tate or Do"ernment must pay an enforced lia+ility to pay Ta,es for
these ta,es are the 7ife+lood of a .tate and in return$ the Do"ernment !ill pro"ide protection$
+enefits$ and other pu+lic ser"ices to the ma2ority if not all of its citi-ens and so2ourners. Iur
8lected Do"ernment Ifficials are "oted for +y the people !ho oaght to deli"er pu+lic goods and
ser"ices to the people in the most effecti"e$ efficient and economical manner for they are pu+lic
ser"ants entrusted !ith such responsi+ility under fiduciary relationship !ith their country and its
7eano$ C-arina Janis <haetia Atty. Desmondo
.unday *&(*% 7egal Writing '
contituents. Iur 7a!ma#ers must enact a la! realligning the PDAF in such a !ay that the
discretionary po!er of the Do"ernment Ifficials entrusted !ith the duty to ser"e the people !ill +e
!ell accounted for and monitored !ith regard to their dis+ursement of Pu+lic Funds intended to
Benefit the Citi-ens of the Philipines.
.IU<C8.:
*. Wi#i
%. 9ttp:;;!!!.a+s(c+nne!s.com;nation;*&;*&;*5;e,(c2(!hy(ph(needs(ne!(la!(replacing(pdaf
5. 9ttp:;;!!!.gmanet!or#.com;ne!s;story;55&&?>;ne!s;nation;palace(shrugs(off(sc(
petitions(dap(legal(pdaf(a+olished
6. 9ttp:;;!!!.rappler.com;nation;66&'@(sc(2un#s(por#(+arrel(unconstitutional
>. .pecial audits office report no. %&*%(&5$ entitled priority de"elopment assistance fund /pdaf0
and
Barious infrastructures including local pro2ects /"ilp0$ pttp:;;coa.go".ph;g!spa;%&*%;sao
<eport%&*%(&5 pdaepdf "
@. 9ttp:;;!!!.intera#syon.com;assets;documents;pdaf**%%%&*5;2usticeR%&antonioR%&t.
R%&carpio.pdf
7eano$ C-arina Janis <haetia Atty. Desmondo
.unday *&(*% 7egal Writing ?