Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Lawyers Against Monopoly and Poverty (LAMP) V.

Secretary of Budget and Management

Facts:

The petitioner LAMP1 filed an original action for certiorari assailing the constitutionality and legality

of the implementation of Priority Development Fund (PDAF) as provided for in RA 9206 or the

General Appropriations Act for 2004 (GAA of 2004). According to LAMP, provisions of GAA 0f 2004

is silent and therefore, prohibits an automatic or direct allocation of lump sums to individual

senators and congressmen for the funding of projects. LAMP states that the supposed flaws in the

implementation of the said law are: 1) The Department of Budget and Management (DBM) illegally

made and directly released budget allocations out of PDAF in favor of individual Members of

Congress; and 2) Congress do not possess the power to propose, select and identify which

projects are to be actually funded by PDAF. According to LAMP there is a violation of the principle

of separation of powers because in receiving in, and spending funds for their chosen projects, the

Members of Congress intrude into a clearly executive function. DBM argues that the Court should

decline the petitioners plea to take judicial notice of the supposed iniquity2 due to: 1) the petition

lacks legal and factual grounds; and 2) there is no concrete proof that PDAF is a source of dirty

money for unscrupulous lawmakers and other officials who tend to misuse their allocations.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the mandatory requisites for exercise of judicial review3 are met

2. Whether or not he implementation of PDAF is unconstitutional

3. Whether or not there is a violation of the principle of separation of powers

Held:

(1) Yes, the requisites for the exercise of judicial review are met in this case.

1 A group of lawyers who have banded together with a mission of dismantling all forms of political, economic
or social monopoly in the country.

2 A wrongful or unjust act

3 The requisites are: 1) An actual or appropriate case, 2) locus standi, 3) exercise of judicial review is
pleaded at the earliest opportunity, and 4) constitutional question is the lis mota of the case
The petition complains of illegal disbursement of public funds derived from taxation and this is

sufficient reason to say that there exists a definite, concrete, real or substantial controversy.

There is locus standi4 because the sufficient interest in preventing the legal expenditure of money

raised by taxation required in a taxpayers suit5 is established.

The Court acknowledges that the petition presents issues with paramount public interest

warranting the assumption of jurisdiction over the petition.

(2)No, the implementation of PDAF is not unconstitutional because no convincing proof was

presented that there was a direct release of funds to the Members of Congress, who actually spend

them according to their own discretion. A statute is always presumed valid because to justify the

nullification of the law or its implementation there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the

Constitution.

(3) There is NO violation of the separation of powers because there ensued a lawful and

regular budgeting and appropriation process during the enactment and implementation of GAA of

2004 and that no evidence was presented showing the contrary.

4 Standing to sue- the person who impugns the validity of the statute must have personal and substantial
interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a result of its enforcement.

5 taxpayers have sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation and may
question the constitutionality of statutes requiring expenditure of public funds.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi