G.R. No. 210503, October 8, 2019
GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF BUDGET, AND THE PHILIPPINE CONGRESS, AS REPRESENTED BY THE HONORABLE SENATE PRESIDENT AND THE HONORABLE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

This case involves a petition challenging the constitutionality of certain alleged lump-sum appropriations in the 2014 General Appropriations Act (GAA), specifically the Unprogrammed Fund, the Contingent Fund, the E-Government Fund, and the Local Government Support Fund. The petitioner contends these funds are of the same character as the pork barrel funds declared unconstitutional in the landmark case of Belgica v. Ochoa, Jr. (Belgica I). In Belgica I, the Court struck down the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and defined the unconstitutional “Pork Barrel System” as involving lump-sum, discretionary funds where legislators or the President effectively control the fund’s utilization through post-enactment measures. The Court held that lump-sum appropriations for multiple purposes are unconstitutional as they deprive the President of his line-item veto power and violate the principles of non-delegability and separation of powers.

ISSUE

Whether the assailed appropriations in the 2014 GAA (Unprogrammed Fund, Contingent Fund, E-Government Fund, and Local Government Support Fund) are unconstitutional lump-sum appropriations for multiple purposes prohibited under the ruling in Belgica v. Ochoa, Jr. (Belgica I).

RULING

Justice Carpio, in his Separate Opinion, voted to dismiss the petition and declared the challenged funds constitutional. He applied the ruling in Belgica I, which did not declare all lump-sum appropriations unconstitutional, but only those that are singular lump-sum amounts to be used as a funding source for multiple purposes, requiring further determination of both the actual amount to be expended and the actual purpose. Such appropriations prevent the President from exercising his line-item veto power over a “specific appropriation of money.” The opinion reiterated the rules established in Belgica I: (1) A lump-sum appropriation that allows the President to exercise his line-item veto is constitutional; (2) A lump-sum appropriation that prevents the President from exercising his line-item veto is unconstitutional; (3) A lump-sum appropriation that, by its nature, cannot be itemized but still has a single purpose (e.g., Calamity Fund, Contingent Fund) is constitutional; (4) A lump-sum appropriation with a single purpose but multiple sub-items (e.g., Personal Services, MOOE) is constitutional, provided the specific Programs, Activities, and Projects have been submitted to Congress.
Justice Carpio analyzed each challenged fund and found they are not the prohibited type of lump-sum appropriation:
1. Unprogrammed Fund: It is a standby appropriation that becomes operational only if revenue collections exceed targets or if loans/grants are secured. Its purposes are specified by law, and any release requires prior approval by the President upon recommendation of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). It is constitutional.
2. Contingent Fund: It is a lump-sum with a single purpose—to fund unforeseen expenditures. It is constitutional as it is akin to the Calamity Fund, which Belgica I cited as an example of a valid “line-item.”
3. Local Government Support Fund: It has a single purpose—to fund financial assistance to local government units. The specific projects are identified in the DBM’s submitted National Expenditure Program, making it a valid appropriation.
4. E-Government Fund: It has a single purpose—to fund activities related to information and communications technology and digitizing government agencies.
Therefore, the assailed funds comply with the requirements of a valid appropriation, have singular purposes, and are not the unconstitutional lump-sum appropriations for multiple purposes prohibited in Belgica I.