PDAF

July 2013, the NBI alleged that a syndicate

defrauded the government of P10 billion
using funds from the pork
Pork barrel
barrel wasofexpanded to include
“Pork barrel”, a politicallawmakers and various government
certain funds of the President such as
parlance of American-English the Malampaya
agencies for scores of ghost projects. Fund and the
origin, refers to anWhistle-blowers also alleged
MALAMPAYA FUNDS
Presidential
that at Social
least Fund (“PSF”).
appropriation of government 2013 PDAFFundsallowed LGUs to be
P900 million from the Malampaya
spending meant for localized identified as implementing agencies.
had gone into a dummy NGO
projects and secured solely Legislators were allowed to identify
or primarily to bring money programs/projects outside of his
to a representative’s district. legislative district

2013 PDAF Article, insofar

as it confers post-
enactment identification
authority to individual
legislators, violates the
principle of non-
delegability since said
exercise the power of
appropriation
 Pork Barrel System 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
participations of the Legislative and Executive branches of government, including its members

Congressional (or Legislative) Pork Presidential (or Executive) Pork

Barrel- A kind of lump-sum, discretionary Barrel - A kind of lump-sum,
fund wherein legislators, either discretionary fund which allows
individually or collectively organized into the President to determine the
committees, can effectively control manner of its utilization. The
certain aspects of the fund’s utilization Malampaya Funds under PD 910
through various post-enactment and the Presidential Social Fund
measures and/or practices. In particular, under PD 1869, as amended by
the PDAF, as it appears under the 2013 PD 1993
GAA, as Congressional Pork Barrel

The post-enactment
measures including project “Appropriation law to be valid under
identification, fund release, Section 29 (1), Article VI of the 1987
and fund realignment are constitution”. Section 8 of PD 910 is a valid
not related to functions of appropriation law because it set apart a
congressional oversight determinable amount: a Special Fund
belongs to the executive comprised of ― all fees, revenues, and
department. Congress or receipts of the [Energy Development] Board
any of its members to play from any and all sources. Section 12 of PD
any role in the No. 1869 is also a valid appropriation law
implementation or because it set apart a determinable amount.
enforcement of the law It also specified a public purpose: priority
violates the principle of infrastructure development projects and the
separation of powers and restoration of damaged or destroyed
is thus unconstitutional. facilities due to calamities, as may be
directed and authorized by the Office of the
President of the Philippines.

2013 PDAF Article, insofar

as it confers post- Section 8 of PD No. 910 and
enactment identification Section 12 of PD No. 1869
authority to individual constitutes undue delegation of
legislators, violates the legislation powers.
principle of non- The phrase “and for such other purposes
delegability. Legislators are as may be hereafter directed by the
individually exercising the President” under Section 8 of PD 910
power of appropriation constitutes an undue delegation of
because each of them legislative power insofar as it does not lay
determines (a) how much of down a sufficient standard to adequately
their PDAF fund would go to determine the limits of the President‘s
and (b) a specific project or authority with respect to the purpose for
beneficiary that they which the Malampaya Funds may be
themselves also determine. used.

Section 12 of PD No. 1869 constitutes an

undue delegation of legislative powers
because it lies independently unfettered by
Yadah Bethel E. any sufficient standard of the delegating
Puracan law. The law does not supply a definition of
EH203 “priority infrastructure development
projects” and hence, leaves the President
without any guideline to construe the same.

Court hereby declares as UNCONSTITUTIONAL: the entire 2013 PDAF Article; The phrases (1) "and
for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President" under Section 8 of
Presidential Decree No. 910 and (2) "to finance the priority infrastructure development projects"
under Section 12 of Presidential Decree No. 1869, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1993 in
violation of the principle of non-delegability of legislative power.