BELGICA

   
vs    
OCHOA
Power  of  Appropriation

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Sections  24,  25,  26,  27  and  29
 #

PROCEDURAL ISSUES
(a)   The  issues  raised  in  the  consolidated  petitions  involve  an  actual  and      
               justiciable  controversy;    
(b)   The  issues  raised  in  the  consolidated  petitions  are  matters  of  policy  not    
             subject  to  judicial  review;  
(c)   Petitioners  have  legal  standing  to  sue;  and  
(d)   The  court’s  decision(Philconsa)  and  in  (LAMP)  bar  the  relitigation  of  the    
               issue  of  constitutionality  of  the  Pork  Barrel  System  under  the  principles      
               of  res  judicata  and  stare  decisis.

WON
CATacuboy
 #

HELD
(a)   There  is  an  actual  and  justiciable  controversy;    
(b)   issues  raised  in  the  petitions  are  matters  of  policy  subject  to  judicial  
review;  
(c)   Petitioners  have  legal  standing  to  sue;  and  
(d)   The  court’s  decision  (Philconsa)  and  (LAMP)  only  partially  bar  the  
relitigation  of  the  issue  of  constitutionality  of  the  Pork  Barrel  System  under  
the  principles  of  res  judicata  and  stare  decisis.

WON
CATacuboy
 #

COURT’S RULING
• Constitutional Litigation
• No question involving the constitutionality
or validity of a law or act may be heard
and decided by court unless there is
compliance with the legal requisites for
judicial inquiry.

CATacuboy
 #

LEGAL REQUISITES
FOR JUDICIAL INQUIRY
• There must be an ACTUAL CONTROVERSY calling
for the exercise of judicial power.
• The person challenging must have the LEGAL
STANDING to question validity of subject
• The question of constitutionality must be raised at the
EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY
• Issue of constitutionality must be the very LIS MOTA
(cause) of the case

CATacuboy
 #
A. EXISTENCE OF AN ACTUAL
CONTROVERSY
SecCon  1,  ArCcle  VIII  of  the  1987  ConsCtuCon:    
Judicial   power   includes   the   duty   of   the   courts   of   jus5ce   to   se6le   actual  
controversies  involving  rights,  which  are  legally  demandable  and  enforceable.  

• There   must   be   a   contrariety   of   legal   rights   that   can   be   interpreted   and  

enforced  on  the  basis  of  exisCng  law  and  jurisprudence.  
• Requirement   of   RIPENESS   regarding   quesGons   raised   for   consGtuGonal  
scruGny  
o Something   had   been   accomplished   or   performed   and   the   peGGoner  
must  allege  the  existence  of  an  immediate  or  threatened  injury  to  itself  
as  a  result  of  the  challenged  acCon

CATacuboy
 #
A. EXISTENCE OF AN ACTUAL
CONTROVERSY
• In   the   case   at   bar,   Court   finds   that   there   exists   an   actual   and   jusGciable  
controversy.  
• The  requirement  of  contrariety  of  legal  rights  is  saGsfied  by  the  antagonisGc  
posiGon  of  parGes  on  the  consGtuGonality  of  the  Pork  Barrel  System    
• QuesGons   are   ripe   for   adjudicaCon   since   challenged   funds   and   provisions  
allowing  for  their  uGlizaGon  are  currently  exisGng  and  operaGonal  
• THREAT:  unconsGtuGonal  use  of  the  public  funds

CATacuboy
 #

A. EXISTENCE OF AN ACTUAL
CONTROVERSY
• PDAF not rendered moot
Line-­‐item   budgeGng   scheme   proposed   by   respondents   would   not  
terminate   the   controversy   nor   diminish   the   useful   purpose   for   its  
resoluGon   because   geared   towards   2014   and   not   the   2013   PDAF  
ArGcle.  
THE  COURT  WILL  DECIDE  WHETHER  A  CASE  IS  MOOT  OR  NOT:  
• (1)By Constitutional Design
annulment  or  nullificaGon  of  a  law  may  be  done  either  by  
Congress,  through  passage  of  a  repealing  law,  or  the  Court  thru  a  
declaraGon  of  unconsGtuGonality.  

CATacuboy
 #

A. EXISTENCE OF AN ACTUAL
CONTROVERSY
• Grave violation of the constitution
Grave   violaGon   of   consGtuGon   with   respect   to   principles   of  
separaGon   of   powers,   non-­‐delegability   of   legislaGve   power,   checks  
and  balances,  accountability  and  local  autonomy.  

• (2) Exceptional Character of the situation and

paramount public interest involved
Coalescence  of  CoA  Report,  account  of  whistle-­‐blowers,  
government’s  own  recogniCon  that  REFORMS  ARE  NEEDED  to  
address  abuses  of  the  PDAF  —  Demonstrates  a  prima  facie  pa^ern  
of  abuse  =  emphasises  importance

CATacuboy
 #

A. EXISTENCE OF AN ACTUAL
CONTROVERSY
• Delos Santos v CoA
Court  upheld  CoA’s  disallowance  of  irregularly  disbursed  PDAF  funds  
-­‐   The   exercise   of   its   general   audit   power   is   among   the   consGtuGonal  
mechanisms  that  gives  life  to  the  check  and  balance  system  inherent  
in   our   form   of   government   —   believe   their   experCse   in   the   laws  
they  are  entrusted  to  enforce  

•to   validate   existence   of   an   actual   and   jusGciable   controversy,   CoA  

report  would  be  sufficient

CATacuboy
 #

A. EXISTENCE OF AN ACTUAL
CONTROVERSY
• (3) Constitutional issue raised requires formulation of
controlling principles to guide the bench, bar, and
public
Compelling  need  to  formulate  controlling  principles  
for   expediGous   resoluGon   of   the   anGcipated   disallowance   cases   and  
for   the   government   to   be   guided   on   how   public   funds   should   be  
uGlised  in  accordance  with  consGtuGonal  principles    

CATacuboy
 #

A. EXISTENCE OF AN ACTUAL
CONTROVERSY
• (4)Case is Capable of repetition yet evading review
• The passage of the national budget is by constitutional
imprimature, an affair of annual occurrence.
• Sanlakas vs. Executive Secretary: court used capable
of repetition but evading review exception in order to
prevent similar questions from emerging.
• The myriad of issues underlying the manner in which
certain public funds are spent, if not resolved at this
time, are capable of repetition. Therefore it must not
evade judicial review.
CATacuboy
 #

B. MATTERS OF POLICY: THE

POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE
• Limitation of power of judicial review to actual cases and
controversies carries assurance that the court will not
intrude into areas committed to the other branches of
government.
• when there is a textually demonstrable constitutional
commitment of the issue to a coordinate political
department, a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable
standards for resolving it, or the impossibility of deciding
without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for
non-judicial discretion.
CATacuboy
 #

B. MATTERS OF POLICY: THE

POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE
• Respondents claim that the political branches are in the
best position not only to perform budget-related
reforms but also to do them in response to the specific
demands of their constituents. — urge court not to
impose solution at this point. — DENIED

CATacuboy
 #

B. MATTERS OF POLICY: THE

POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE
• The issues raised do not present political but legal
questions which are within its province to resolve.
• Political Question:
• 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.
• Issues dependent upon wisdom, or a particular
measure.
CATacuboy
 #

B. MATTERS OF POLICY: THE

POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE
• The constitutionality of the Pork Barrel System is
not an issue dependent upon the wisdom of the
political branches of government but rather a legal
one which the constitution itself has commanded
the court to act upon.

CATacuboy
 #

B. MATTERS OF POLICY: THE

POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE
• Sect 1 Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution
• The Judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme
Court and in such lower courts as may be established by
law. It includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether
or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
CATacuboy
 #

B. MATTERS OF POLICY: THE

POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE
• When the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional
boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the
other departments; does not in reality nullify or invalidate
an act of the legislature (or executive), but only asserts
the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by
the constitution

CATacuboy
 #

C. 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 issues upon which the court
depends for illumination of difficult constitutional
questions. Unless a person is injuriously affected in
any of his constitutional rights by the operation of
statute or ordinance, he has no standing.”

CATacuboy
 #

C. LOCUS STANDI
• Petitioners have come before the court as citizen-
taxpayers and accordingly assert that they dutifully
contribute to the coffers (financial reserves) of the National
Treasury.
• As  taxpayers  they  possess  the  requisite  standing  to  quesGon  the  
validity   of   the   exisGng   Pork   Barrel   System   uGlizing   the   taxes   they  
have  been  paying.  
• PeGGoners  are  bound  to  suffer  from  the  unconsGtuGonal  usage  
of  public  funds  
• Issues   raised   are   classified   as   ma^ers   of   transcendental  
importance,  to  society  or  of  paramount  public  interest
CATacuboy
 #

D. RES JUDICATA AND

STARE DECISIS
• The court examines the applicability of these
principles in relation to its prior rulings in Philconsa
and LAMP

CATacuboy
 #

D. RES JUDICATA AND

STARE DECISIS
• Res Judicata : Matter adjudged
• A   judgment   on   the   merits   in   a   previous   case   rendered   by   a  
court  of  competent  jurisdicGon  would  bind  a  subsequent  case  if  
there   exists   an   idenGty   of   parGes,   of   subject   ma^er   and   of  
causes  of  acGon.  
• PHILCONSA:  1994  Countrywide  Development  Fund  
• LAMP:  2004  PDAF  ArGcle  
• Dismissed  based  on  procedural  technicality.  No  convincing  
proof  
• Direct   release   of   funds   to   Congress   or   illegal   misuse   of  
PDAF CATacuboy
 #

D. RES JUDICATA AND

STARE DECISIS
• Res Judicata : Matter adjudged
• Present  Case  :  enGre  Pork  Barrel  System  
• Res  Judicata  insofar  as  Philconsa  and  LAMP  cases  are  
concerned,  cannot  be  applied.

CATacuboy
 #

D. RES JUDICATA AND

STARE DECISIS
• Stare Decisis – Follow past precedents and do not
disturb what has been settled. The focal point of stare
decisis is the doctrine created.
• ArGcle  VIII  CC  
• For  the  sake  of  certainty,  a  conclusion  reached  in  one  
case   should   be   doctrinally   applied   to   those   that   follow   if  
the   facts   are   substanGally   the   same,   even   though   the  
parGes  may  be  different.  

CATacuboy
 #

D. RES JUDICATA AND

STARE DECISIS
• Where the same questions relating to the same event
have been put forward in a previous case litigated and
decided by a competent court, the rule of stare decisis is
a bar to any attempt to re-litigate the same issue.

CATacuboy
 #

D. RES JUDICATA AND

STARE DECISIS
• PHILCONSA: first case where a constitutional challenge
against Pork Barrel provision
• PETITIONERS:
• That the power of proposal and identification of the
projects do not involve the making of laws or the
repeal and amendment thereof, which is the only
function given to the Congress by Constitution

CATacuboy
 #

D. RES JUDICATA AND

STARE DECISIS
• COURT’S CONCLUSION:
• Under the constitution, the power of appropriation,
or the power of the purse belongs to Congress
• The power of appropriation carries with it the
power to specify the project or activity to be
funded under the appropriation law and it can be
detailed and as broad as Congress wants it to be.
• The proposals and identifications made by MC are
merely recommendatory
CATacuboy
 #

D. RES JUDICATA AND

STARE DECISIS
• PHILCONSA RESOLUTION:
• A limited response to a separation of powers
problem, specifically on the propriety of conferring
post-enactment identification authority to MC

CATacuboy
 #

D. RES JUDICATA AND

STARE DECISIS
• PRESENT CASE:
• Calls for a more holistic examination of
• the inter-relation between the CDF and PDAF Articles
with each other, formative as they are of the entire
Pork Barrel System as well as
• the Intra-relation of post-enactment measures
contained within a particular CDF or PDAF Article,
including not only those related to the area of project
identification but also to areas of fund release and
realignment CATacuboy
 #

D. RES JUDICATA AND

STARE DECISIS
• PRESENT CASE:
• The complexity of issues and legal analyses may be
considered as a powerful countervailing reason against
a wholesale application of the stare decisis principle.
• Philconsa ruling – inherent constitutional inconsistencies
which countervail against full resort to stare decisis.
• Fundamental premise in allowing MC to propose and
identify projects would be that identification authority as
an aspect of power of appropriation has been
constitutionally lodged in Congress.
CATacuboy
 #

D. RES JUDICATA AND

STARE DECISIS
• PRESENT CASE:
• If authority to identify projects as an aspect of
appropriation and power of appropriation is a form of
legislative power lodged in Congress, it follows that
A. It is Congress which should exercise such authority not its
individual members
B. Such authority must be exercised within the prescribed procedure
of law passage — should not be exercised after the GAA has
already been passed
C. Such authority, as embodied in the GAA, has the force of law —
cannot be merely recommendatory
CATacuboy
 #

D. RES JUDICATA AND

STARE DECISIS
• PRESENT CASE:
• JUSTICE VITUG
• Neither would it be objectionable for Congress to appropriate funds for
such specific projects as it may be minded
• To give authority to individual members of Congress would be
constitutionally impermissible
• Based on the current findings of the CoA Report, the court must
partially abandon the Philconsa ruling insofar as it validated the post-
enactment identification authority of MC on the guise that the same was
merely recommendatory.
• Abakada Guro Party List vs Purisima : effectively overturned Philconsa’s
allowance of post-enactment legislator participation in view of the
separation of powers principle
CATacuboy
 #

D. RES JUDICATA AND

STARE DECISIS
• LAMP CASE:
• case was dismissed on a procedural technicality
and has not set any controlling doctrine susceptible
of current application to the substantive issues in these
cases.
• STARE DECISIS WOULD NOT APPLY.

CATacuboy