LAMP VS.

SEC OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT

LAWYERS AGAINST MONOPOLY AND POVERTY (LAMP), represente !" #ts C$%#r&%n %n '()nse*,
CEFERINO PADUA, Me&!ers, ALBERTO ABELEDA, +R., ELEA,AR ANGELES, GREGELY FULTON ACOSTA,
VICTOR AVECILLA, GALILEO BRION, ANATALIA BUENAVENTURA, EFREN CARAG, PEDRO CASTILLO,
NAPOLEON CORONADO, ROMEO EC-AU,, ALFREDO DE GU,MAN, ROGELIO .ARAGDAG, +R., MARIA LU,
AR,AGA/MENDO,A, LEO LUIS MENDO,A, ANTONIO P. PAREDES, A0UILINO PIMENTEL III, MARIO REYES,
EMMANUEL SANTOS, TERESITA SANTOS, RUDEGELIO TACORDA, SECRETARY GEN. ROLANDO AR,AGA,
B(%r (1 C(ns)*t%nts, +USTICE ABRA-AM SARMIENTO, SEN. A0UILINO PIMENTEL, +R., %n BARTOLOME
FERNANDE,, +R.
2s.
T-E SECRETARY OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, T-E TREASURER OF T-E P-ILIPPINES, T-E
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, %n T-E PRESIDENT OF T-E SENATE %n t$e SPEA.ER OF T-E -OUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES #n represent%t#(n (1 t$e Me&!ers (1 t$e C(n3ress
G.R. N(. 456789, Apr#* :6, :;4:
FACTS: For consideration of the Court is an original action for certiorari assailing the constitutionality and legality of
the implementation of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) as provided for in Republic Act (R.A.) !"#
or the $eneral Appropriations Act for !""% ($AA of !""%).
Petitioner &a'yers Against (onopoly and Poverty(&A(P)) a group of la'yers 'ho have banded together 'ith a
mission of dismantling all forms of political) economic or social monopoly in the country. According to &A(P) the
above provision is silent and) therefore) prohibits an automatic or direct allocation of lump sums to individual senators
and congressmen for the funding of pro*ects. +t does not empo'er individual (embers of Congress to propose) select
and identify programs and pro*ects to be funded out of PDAF.
For &A(P) this situation runs afoul against the principle of separation of po'ers because in receiving and) thereafter)
spending funds for their chosen pro*ects) the (embers of Congress in effect intrude into an e,ecutive function.
Further) the authority to propose and select pro*ects does not pertain to legislation. -+t is) in fact) a non.legislative
function devoid of constitutional sanction)/0 and) therefore) impermissible and must be considered nothing less than
malfeasance.
R12P34D14562 P32+5+34: the perceptions of &A(P on the implementation of PDAF must not be based on mere
speculations circulated in the ne's media preaching the evils of por7 barrel.
ISSUES: 8) 'hether or not the mandatory re9uisites for the e,ercise of *udicial revie' are met in this case: and !)
'hether or not the implementation of PDAF by the (embers of Congress is unconstitutional and illegal.
-ELD:
+.
A 9uestion is ripe for ad*udication 'hen the act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the individual
challenging it. +n this case) the petitioner contested the implementation of an alleged unconstitutional statute) as
citi;ens and ta,payers. 5he petition complains of illegal disbursement of public funds derived from ta,ation and this is
sufficient reason to say that there indeed e,ists a definite) concrete) real or substantial controversy before the Court.
&3C<2 25A4D+: 5he gist of the 9uestion of standing is 'hether a party alleges -such a personal sta7e in the
outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness 'hich sharpens the presentation of issues upon
'hich the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional 9uestions. =ere) the sufficient interest
preventing the illegal e,penditure of money raised by ta,ation re9uired in ta,payers6 suits is established. 5hus) in the
claim that PDAF funds have been illegally disbursed and 'asted through the enforcement of an invalid or
unconstitutional la') &A(P should be allo'ed to sue.
&astly) the Court is of the vie' that the petition poses issues impressed 'ith paramount public interest. 5he
ramification of issues involving the unconstitutional spending of PDAF deserves the consideration of the Court)
'arranting the assumption of *urisdiction over the petition.
++.
5he Court rules in the negative.
+n determining 'hether or not a statute is unconstitutional) the Court does not lose sight of the presumption of validity
accorded to statutory acts of Congress. 5o *ustify the nullification of the la' or its implementation) there must be a
clear and une9uivocal) not a doubtful) breach of the Constitution. +n case of doubt in the sufficiency of proof
establishing unconstitutionality) the Court must sustain legislation because -to invalidate >a la'? based on , , ,
baseless supposition is an affront to the 'isdom not only of the legislature that passed it but also of the e,ecutive
'hich approved it./
5he petition is miserably 'anting in this regard. 4o convincing proof 'as presented sho'ing that) indeed) there 'ere
direct releases of funds to the (embers of Congress) 'ho actually spend them according to their sole discretion.
Devoid of any pertinent evidentiary support that illegal misuse of PDAF in the form of 7ic7bac7s has become a
common e,ercise of unscrupulous (embers of Congress) the Court cannot indulge the petitioner6s re9uest for
re*ection of a la' 'hich is out'ardly legal and capable of la'ful enforcement.
P3R@ AARR1&:
5he (embers of Congress are then re9uested by the President to recommend pro*ects and programs 'hich may be
funded from the PDAF. 5he list submitted by the (embers of Congress is endorsed by the 2pea7er of the =ouse of
Representatives to the DA() 'hich revie's and determines 'hether such list of pro*ects submitted are consistent
'ith the guidelines and the priorities set by the 1,ecutive./BB 5his demonstrates the po'er given to the President to
e,ecute appropriation la's and therefore) to e,ercise the spending per se of the budget.
As applied to this case) the petition is seriously 'anting in establishing that individual (embers of Congress receive
and thereafter spend funds out of PDAF. 2o long as there is no sho'ing of a direct participation of legislators in the
actual spending of the budget) the constitutional boundaries bet'een the 1,ecutive and the &egislative in the
budgetary process remain intact.
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
NOTES:
P3D1R 3F E<D+C+A& R1F+1D:
(8) there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the e,ercise of *udicial po'er:
(!) (!) the person challenging the act must have the standing to 9uestion the validity of the sub*ect act or issuance:
other'ise stated) he must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained) or 'ill
sustain) direct in*ury as a result of its enforcement:
(B) (B) the 9uestion of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity: and
(%) (%) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.