G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013
BELGICA, ET AL. VS. OCHOA, JR., ET AL.
FACTS
The case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), commonly known as the “Pork Barrel System.”
ISSUE
Whether the PDAF violated the principle of separation of powers.
RULING
The Supreme Court struck down the PDAF as unconstitutional. It ruled that the system violated the principle of separation of powers by allowing legislators to participate in the post-enactment phase of budget execution, which is a purely executive function. This encroachment by the Legislative branch into the sphere of the Executive breached the constitutional design.
G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014
ARAULLO, ET AL. VS. AQUINO III, ET AL.
FACTS
The case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), an executive spending mechanism.
ISSUE
Whether the DAP violated the principle of separation of powers.
RULING
The Supreme Court declared certain acts under the DAP unconstitutional. It reiterated that while the Executive has discretion in budget execution, it cannot cross the line into legislation by re-appropriating funds in a manner not authorized by law. This act of re-appropriation by the Executive violated the separation of powers by infringing upon the legislative power of the purse.
