In the Know: SC recognized pork barrel funds as constitutional
In at least three cases in the past decade, the Supreme Court had recognized the constitutionality of the pork barrel funds.
In an en banc decision on Aug. 19, 1994, the court in Philconsa v. Enriquez described the pork barrel system, particularly the procedure of proposing and identifying by members of Congress of particular projects or activities, as “imaginative as it is innovative.”
Merely recommendatory
The court added that the fund—known at the time as the Countrywide Development Fund (CDF)—“is also a recognition that individual members of Congress, far more than the President and their congressional colleagues are likely to be knowledgeable about the needs of their respective constituents and the priority to be given each project.”
But the court said that “the proposals and identifications made by the members of Congress are merely recommendatory” and that the President, after due examination, shall implement them.
In a resolution on Sept. 4, 2001, the high tribunal in Andres Sarmiento et al. v. the Treasurer of the Philippines et al. reiterated the constitutionality of CDF based on its decision in Philconsa v. Enriquez.
Intrusion in executive work
On April 24, 2012, the Supreme Court reiterated the constitutionality of the pork system, renamed by then the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) in Lawyers Against Monopoly and Poverty (LAMP) v. the Secretary of Budget and Management et al.
LAMP decried alleged flaws in the implementation of the PDAF, particularly the Department of Budget and Management’s direct release of funds to members of Congress. It said the system violated the principle of separation of powers and allowed lawmakers to intrude into an executive function.
In its decision, the high tribunal held: “Although the possibility of this unscrupulous practice cannot be entirely discounted, surmises and conjectures are not sufficient bases for the court to strike down the practice for being offensive to the Constitution.”
“So long as there is no showing of a direct participation of legislators in the actual spending of the budget, the constitutional boundaries between the executive and the legislative in the budgetary process remain intact,” the court added.—Inquirer Research
