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

Petitioner Greco Antonious Beda B. Belgica filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing the constitutionality of the “lump-sum discretionary funds” in the 2014 General Appropriations Act (GAA), including the Unprogrammed Fund, the Contingent Fund, the E-Government Fund, and the Local Government Support Fund. This petition followed the Court’s Decision in Belgica v. Ochoa, Jr. (the 2013 Belgica case), which declared certain provisions of the 2013 GAA, particularly the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and related “pork barrel” systems, unconstitutional. Petitioner asserts that the lump-sum discretionary funds in the 2014 GAA are of the same character as the unconstitutional pork barrel funds. He sought a status quo ante order, which the Court did not issue. The petition raises substantive constitutional issues regarding these appropriations.

ISSUE

Whether the lump-sum appropriations found in the 2014 GAA are unconstitutional for: (1) violating the doctrine on non-delegability of legislative power; (2) violating the essence and purpose of separation of powers (i.e., checks and balances) and the democratic process; and (3) failing to comply with the requirements of a valid appropriation, the line-item veto power of the President, and Executive Order No. 292 (the Administrative Code of 1987).

RULING

The Court DENIED the petition. It held that the assailed lump-sum appropriations in the 2014 GAA are not unconstitutional.
Procedurally, the Court found the petition ripe for adjudication as it involves a challenge to the implementation of appropriations, which concerns the possible misapplication of public funds causing injury to taxpayers. Although the 2014 fiscal year had lapsed, the case was not moot as it involved paramount public interest, required the formulation of controlling principles on significant constitutional issues (separation of powers, valid delegation, appropriation), and was capable of repetition yet evading review given the annual budget cycle.
Substantively, the Court ruled:
1. On Non-delegability of Legislative Power: The lump-sum appropriations did not constitute an undue delegation of legislative power. The Court distinguished the assailed funds from the “Congressional Pork Barrel” struck down in the 2013 Belgica case. The Unprogrammed Fund, Contingent Fund, and Local Government Support Fund are “President’s Pork Barrel” or lump-sum discretionary funds under the President’s control, the constitutionality of which was not squarely ruled upon in the prior case. These funds are governed by sufficient standards provided in the GAA itself and other existing laws, which adequately guide the Executive’s discretion in their use, thus satisfying the completeness test and the sufficient standard test for valid delegation.
2. On Separation of Powers and Democratic Process: The assailed funds do not violate separation of powers. Unlike the PDAF, which allowed legislators to intervene in post-enactment budget execution, the funds challenged here are under the exclusive discretion of the Executive branch, in accordance with its constitutional duty to execute the budget. Their existence does not infringe upon the legislative power of the purse.
3. On Requirements of a Valid Appropriation, Line-Item Veto, and the Administrative Code: The lump-sum appropriations comply with constitutional and statutory requirements. They constitute a “line-item” as they specify a single purpose or program with a lump-sum amount, which is permissible. The President’s line-item veto power is not rendered inutile, as the appropriations are sufficiently specific for the President to exercise this power. Furthermore, the funds adhere to the guidelines under the Administrative Code regarding the structure and content of the budget. The Court also noted that the E-Government Fund was not a lump-sum discretionary fund but an allocation to the Department of Science and Technology for a specific, existing program.