21 Negros Oriental II Electric Cooperative vs.

Even assuming that the SP and the Ad-Hoc Committee

Sangguniang Panglungsod of Dumaguete City (G.R. No. had the power to issue the subpoena and the order
724 complained of, such issuances would still be void for
155 SCRA 421 – Political Law – Inquiry in Aid of being ultra vires. The contempt power (and the
Legislation – LGUs subpoena power) if actually possessed, may only be
In 1985, the Sangguniang Panlungsod (SP) of exercised where the subject matter of the investigation
Dumaguete sought to conduct an investigation in is within the jurisdiction of the legislative body.
connection with pending legislation related to the
operations of public utilities. Invited in the hearing
were the heads of NORECO II (Negros Oriental II
Electric Cooperative, Inc.) – Paterio Torres and Arturo 21 Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee (G.R.
Umbac. NORECO II is alleged to have installed No. 89914, November 20, 1991)92, November 5,
inefficient power lines in the said city. Torres and 1987)
Umbac refused to appear before the SP and they Aimee N. Calo
alleged that the power to investigate, and to order the Political Law
improvement of, alleged inefficient power lines to
conform to standards is lodged exclusively with the Bengzon v. The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
National Electrification Administration (NEA); and G.R. No. 89914
neither the Charter of the City of Dumaguete nor the November 20, 1991
[old] Local Government Code (Batas Pambansa Blg.
337) grants the SP such power. The SP averred that Facts:
inherent in the legislative functions performed by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG)
respondent SP is the power to conduct investigations filed with the Sandiganbayan against Benjamin
in aid of legislation and with it, the power to punish for Romualdez, et al. for engaging in devices, schemes and
contempt in inquiries on matters within its jurisdiction. stratagems to unjustly enrich themselves at the
ISSUE: Whether or not LGUs can issue contempt. expense of Plaintiff and the Filipino people. The Senate
HELD: No. There is no express provision either in the Minority Floor Leader, Hon. Juan Ponce Enrile
1973 Constitution or in the LGC (BP 337) granting local delivered a speech "on a matter of personal privilege"
legislative bodies, the power to subpoena witnesses before the Senate on the alleged "take-over personal
and the power to punish non-members for contempt. privilege" before the Senate on the alleged "take-over
Absent a constitutional or legal provision for the of SOLOIL Incorporated, the flagship of the First Manila
exercise of these powers, the only possible justification Management of Companies (FMMC) by Ricardo Lopa"
for the issuance of a subpoena and for the punishment and called upon "the Senate to look into the possible
of non-members for contumacious behavior would be violation of the law in the case, particularly with regard
for said power to be deemed implied in the statutory to Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt
grant of delegated legislative power. But, the contempt Practices Act). Committee on Accountability of Public
power and the subpoena power partake of a judicial Officers (Senate Blue Ribbon Committee[SBRC])
nature. They cannot be implied in the grant of started its investigation on the matter. SBRC
legislative power. Neither can they exist as mere subpoenaed the petitioners and Lopa for their
incidents of the performance of legislative functions. To attendance on the matter to testify on what they know
allow local legislative bodies or administrative agencies about the sale of 36 corporations belonging to
to exercise these powers without express statutory Romualdez. Lopa and Romualdez refused to testify,
basis would run afoul of the doctrine of separation of invoking their rights to due process, and that their
powers. There being no provision in the LGC explicitly testimony may unduly prejudice the defendants and
granting local legislative bodies, the power to issue petitioners in case before the Sandiganbayan. SBRC
compulsory process and the power to punish for rejected the petitioner’s plea to be excused from
contempt, the SP of Dumaguete is devoid of power to testifying and the SBRC continued its investigation on
punish the petitioners Torres and Umbac for contempt. the matter. The petitioners filed for prohibition with a
The Ad Hoc Committee of said legislative body has even prayer for TRO and/or injunctive relief, claiming that
less basis to claim that it can exercise these powers. the SBRC in requiring their attendance and testimony,
acted in excess of its jurisdiction and legislative witness testifying at all, simply because he is already
purpose. The Supreme Court intervened upon a facing charges before the Sandiganbayan. To my mind,
motion for reconsideration filed by one of the the Constitution allows him to interpose objections
defendants of the civil case. whenever an incriminating question is posed or when
he is compelled to reveal his court defenses, but not to
Issues: refuse to take the witness stand completely.
Is the matter being investigated one on which no valid
legislation could possibly be enacted?
Is Congress encroaching on terrain which the 22 Senate vs. Ermita (G.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006)
Constitution has reserved as the exclusive domain of Senate v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006
another branch of government? FACTS:
Is Congress violating the basic liberties of an On September 21 to 23, 2005, the Committee of the
individual? Senate as a whole issued invitations to various officials
of the Executive Department for them to appear as
Ruling: resource speakers in a public hearing on the railway
No. The power to conduct formal inquiries or project of the North Luzon Railways Corporation with
investigations is specifically provided for in Sec. 1 of the China National Machinery and Equipment Group
the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in (hereinafter North Rail Project).
Aid of Legislation. Such inquiries may refer to the On September 28, 2005, the President then issued
implementation or re-examination of any law or in Executive Order 464, “Ensuring Observance of the
connection with any proposed legislation or the Principle of Separation of Powers, Adherence to the
formulation of future legislation. They may also extend Rule on Executive Privilege and Respect for the Rights
to any and all matters vested by the Constitution in of Public Officials Appearing in Legislative Inquiries in
Congress and/or in the Senate alone. It appears, Aid of Legislation Under the Constitution, and For
therefore, that the contemplated inquiry by Other Purposes,” which, pursuant to Section 6 thereof,
respondent Committee is not really "in aid of took effect immediately.
legislation" because it is not related to a purpose
within the jurisdiction of Congress, since the aim of the ISSUES:
investigation is to find out whether or not the relatives Whether E.O. 464 contravenes the power of inquiry
of the President or Mr. Lopa had violated Section 5 RA vested in Congress;
No. 3019, a matter that appears more within the Whether E.O. 464 violates the right of the people to
province of the courts rather than of the legislature. information on matters of public concern; and
No. It cannot be said that the contemplated inquiry on Whether respondents have committed grave abuse of
the subject of the privilege speech of Sen. Juan Ponce discretion when they implemented E.O. 464 prior to its
Enrile, i.e., the alleged sale of the 36 (or 39) publication in a newspaper of general circulation.
corporations belonging to Romualdez to the Lopa
Group is to be conducted pursuant to Senate HELD:
Resolution No. 212 because, firstly, Sen. Enrile did not The Congress power of inquiry is expressly recognized
indict the PCGG, and, secondly, neither Mr. Lopa nor in Section 21 of Article VI of the Constitution. This
the herein petitioners are connected with the power of inquiry is broad enough to cover officials of
government but are private citizens. the executive branch; it is co-extensive with the power
Yes. The Constitution expressly provides that "the to legislate. The matters which may be a proper
rights of persons appearing in or affected by such subject of legislation and those which may be a proper
inquiries shall be respected. It should be emphasized subject of investigation are one. It follows that the
that the constitutional restriction does not call for the operation of government, being a legitimate subject
banning or prohibition of investigations where a for legislation, is a proper subject for investigation.
violation of a basis rights is claimed. It only requires Yes. Although there are clear distinctions between the
that in the course of the proceedings, the right of right of Congress to information which underlies the
persons should be respected. What the majority power of inquiry and the right of the people to
opinion mandates is a blanket prohibition against a information on matters of public concern, any
executive issuance tending to unduly limit disclosures session, the power if Congress to legislate is
of information in investigations in Congress necessarily notcircumscribed except by the limitations imposed by
deprives the people of information which, being the organic law
presumed to be in aid of legislation, is presumed to be
a matter of public concern.
Yes. While E.O. 464 applies only to officials of the
executive branch, it does not follow that the same is 24 Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance (G.R. No. 115544,
exempt from the need for publication. It has a direct August 25, 1994)
effect on the right of the people to information on
matters of public concern. Due process requires that
the people should have been apprised of its issuance Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance - 249 SCRA 635
before it was implemented. FACTS:Petitioners (Tolentino, Kilosbayan, Inc.,
Philippine Airlines, Roco, and Chamber of Real Estate
23 Araneta vs. Dinglasan (84 Phil. 369) and Builders Association) seek reconsideration of the
Court’s previous ruling dismissing the
petitions filed for the declaration of unconstitutionality
ARANETA v. DINGLASAN84 PHIL 368 of R.A. No. 7716, the Expanded Value-Added Tax Law.
FACTS:The five cases are consolidated for all of them Petitioners contend tha
present the same fundamental question. Antonio t the R.A. did not “originate exclusively” in the HoR as
Aranetais being charged for violating EO 62 which required by Article 6, Section 24 of the Constitution.
regulates rentals for houses and lots for residential The Senate allegedly did not pass it onsecond and
buildings.Another case is of Leon Ma. Guerrero third readings, instead passing its own version.
seeking to have a permit issued for the exportation of Petitioners contend that it shouldhave amended the
hismanufactured shoes. Another is of Eulogio House bill by striking out the text of the bill and
Rodriguez seeking to prohibit the treasury from substituting it with the textof its own bill, so as to
disbursingfunds pursuant to EO 225, while another is conform with the Constitution.ISSUE:
of Antonio Barredo attacking EO 226 which W/N the R.A. is unconstitutional for having
appropriatedfunds to hold the national elections. They “originated” from the Senate, and not the HoR.
all content that CA 671 or the emergency Powers Act HELD:Petition is unmeritorious. The enactment of the
isalready inoperative and that all EOs issued under said Senate bill has not been the first instancewhere the
Act also ceased Senate, in the exercise of its power to propose
ISSUE:Whether or not the Emergency Powers Act has amendments to bills (required tooriginate in the
ceased to have any force and effect House), passed its own version. An amendment by
substitution (striking out thetext and substituting it), as
HELD:CA 671 does not fix the duration of its urged by petitioners, concerns a mere matter of form,
effectiveness. The intention of the act has to be sought andconsidering the petitioner has not shown what
for in itsnature, object to be accomplished, the substantial difference it would make if Senateapplied
purpose to be subserved and its relation to the such substitution in the case, it cannot be applied to
Constitution. the case at bar. While the
Article VI of the Constitution provides that any law aforementioned Constitutional provision states that
passed by virtue thereof should be “for a bills must “originate exclusively in theHoR,” it also
limitedperiod”. It is presumed that CA 671 was app adds, “but the Senate may propose or concur with
roved with this limitation in view. The opposite amendments.” The Senate may
theorywould make the law repugnant to the then propose an entirely new bill as a substitute
Constitution, and is contrary to the principle that the measure. Petitioners erred in assuming theSenate
legislature isdeemed to have full knowledge of the version to be an independent and distinct bill. Without
Constitutional scope of its power. CA 671 became the House bill, Senate could nothave enacted the
inoperativewhen Congress met in regular session of Senate bill, as the latter was a mere amendment of the
May 25, 1946, and that EO Nos. 62, 192, 225 and 226 former. As such, it didnot have to pass the Senate on
wereissued without authority of law. In a regular second and third readings.Petitioners question the
signing of the President on both bills, to support their The filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in
contention thatsuch are separate and distinct. The anticipation of its receipt of the bill from the House,
President certified the bills separately only because does not contravene the constitutional requirement
thecertification had to be made of the version of the that a bill of local application should originate in the
same revenue bill which AT THE MOMENTwas being House of Representatives, for as long as the Senate
considered.Petitioners question the power of the does not act thereupon until it receives the House bill.
Conference Committee to insert new provisions.
The jurisdiction of the conference committee is not lim 25 Araullo vs. Aquino (G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014)
ited to resolving differences between theSenate and
the House. It may propose an entirely new provision, Araullo vs Aquino GR 209287 July 1, 2014
given that such are germaneto the subject of the Political Law – Constitutional Law – Separation of
conference, and that the respective houses of Powers – Fund Realignment – Constitutionality of the
Congress subsequentlyapprove its report.Petitioner Disbursement Acceleration Program
PAL contends that the amendment of its franchise by Power of the Purse – Executive Impoundment
the withdrawal of itsexemption from VAT is not When President Benigno Aquino III took office, his
expressed in the title of the law, thereby violating the administration noticed the sluggish growth of the
Constitution.The Court believes that the title of the economy. The World Bank advised that the economy
R.A. satisfies the Constitutional Requirement needed a stimulus plan. Budget Secretary Florencio
“Butch” Abad then came up with a program called the
Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP).
The DAP was seen as a remedy to speed up the
24 Alvarez vs. Guingona (G.R. No. 118303, January 31, funding of government projects. DAP enables the
1996) Executive to realign funds from slow moving projects
to priority projects instead of waiting for next year’s
Facts: appropriation. So what happens under the DAP was
On April 18, 1993, HB No. 8817, entitled “An Act that if a certain government project is being
Converting the Municipality of Santiago into an undertaken slowly by a certain executive agency, the
Independent Component City to be known as the City funds allotted therefor will be withdrawn by the
of Santiago,” was filed in the House of Executive. Once withdrawn, these funds are declared
Representatives. Meanwhile, a counterpart of HB No. as “savings” by the Executive and said funds will then
8817, Senate Bill No. 1243, was filed in the Senate. On be reallotted to other priority projects. The DAP
March 22, 1994, the House of Representatives, upon program did work to stimulate the economy as
being apprised of the action of the Senate, approved economic growth was in fact reported and portion of
the amendments proposed by the Senate. such growth was attributed to the DAP (as noted by
Issue: the Supreme Court).
Does the passing of SB No. 1243, the Senate’s own Other sources of the DAP include the unprogrammed
version of HB No. 8817, into Republic Act No. 7720 be funds from the General Appropriations Act (GAA).
said to have originated in the House of Unprogrammed funds are standby appropriations
Representatives as required? made by Congress in the GAA.
Held: Meanwhile, in September 2013, Senator Jinggoy
Yes. Although a bill of local application should originate Estrada made an exposé claiming that he, and other
exclusively in the House of Representatives, the claim Senators, received Php50M from the President as an
of petitioners that Republic Act No. 7720 did not incentive for voting in favor of the impeachment of
originate exclusively in the House of Representatives then Chief Justice Renato Corona. Secretary Abad
because a bill of the same import, SB No. 1243, was claimed that the money was taken from the DAP but
passed in the Senate, is untenable because it cannot was disbursed upon the request of the Senators.
be denied that HB No. 8817 was filed in the House of This apparently opened a can of worms as it turns out
Representatives first before SB No. 1243 was filed in that the DAP does not only realign funds within the
the Senate. Executive. It turns out that some non-Executive
projects were also funded; to name a few: Php1.5B for
the CPLA (Cordillera People’s Liberation Army), Impoundment is actually prohibited by the GAA unless
Php1.8B for the MNLF (Moro National Liberation there will be an unmanageable national government
Front), P700M for the Quezon Province, P50-P100M budget deficit (which did not happen). Nevertheless,
for certain Senators each, P10B for Relocation there’s no impoundment in the case at bar because
Projects, etc. what’s involved in the DAP was the transfer of funds.
This prompted Maria Carolina Araullo, Chairperson of III. No, the transfers made through the DAP were
the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, and several other unconstitutional. It is true that the President (and even
concerned citizens to file various petitions with the the heads of the other branches of the government)
Supreme Court questioning the validity of the DAP. are allowed by the Constitution to make realignment
Among their contentions was: of funds, however, such transfer or realignment should
DAP is unconstitutional because it violates the only be made “within their respective offices”. Thus,
constitutional rule which provides that “no money no cross-border transfers/augmentations may be
shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of allowed. But under the DAP, this was violated because
an appropriation made by law.” funds appropriated by the GAA for the Executive were
Secretary Abad argued that the DAP is based on being transferred to the Legislative and other non-
certain laws particularly the GAA (savings and Executive agencies.
augmentation provisions thereof), Sec. 25(5), Art. VI of Further, transfers “within their respective offices” also
the Constitution (power of the President to augment), contemplate realignment of funds to an existing
Secs. 38 and 49 of Executive Order 292 (power of the project in the GAA. Under the DAP, even though some
President to suspend expenditures and authority to projects were within the Executive, these projects are
use savings, respectively). non-existent insofar as the GAA is concerned because
Issues: no funds were appropriated to them in the GAA.
I. Whether or not the DAP violates the principle “no Although some of these projects may be legitimate,
money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in they are still non-existent under the GAA because they
pursuance of an appropriation made by law” (Sec. were not provided for by the GAA. As such, transfer to
29(1), Art. VI, Constitution). such projects is unconstitutional and is without legal
II. Whether or not the DAP realignments can be basis.
considered as impoundments by the executive. On the issue of what are “savings”
III. Whether or not the DAP realignments/transfers are These DAP transfers are not “savings” contrary to what
constitutional. was being declared by the Executive. Under the
IV. Whether or not the sourcing of unprogrammed definition of “savings” in the GAA, savings only occur,
funds to the DAP is constitutional. among other instances, when there is an excess in the
V. Whether or not the Doctrine of Operative Fact is funding of a certain project once it is completed,
applicable. finally discontinued, or finally abandoned. The GAA
HELD: does not refer to “savings” as funds withdrawn from a
I. No, the DAP did not violate Section 29(1), Art. VI of slow moving project. Thus, since the statutory
the Constitution. DAP was merely a program by the definition of savings was not complied with under the
Executive and is not a fund nor is it an appropriation. It DAP, there is no basis at all for the transfers. Further,
is a program for prioritizing government spending. As savings should only be declared at the end of the fiscal
such, it did not violate the Constitutional provision year. But under the DAP, funds are already being
cited in Section 29(1), Art. VI of the Constitution. In withdrawn from certain projects in the middle of the
DAP no additional funds were withdrawn from the year and then being declared as “savings” by the
Treasury otherwise, an appropriation made by law Executive particularly by the DBM.
would have been required. Funds, which were already IV. No. Unprogrammed funds from the GAA cannot be
appropriated for by the GAA, were merely being used as money source for the DAP because under the
realigned via the DAP. law, such funds may only be used if there is a
II. No, there is no executive impoundment in the DAP. certification from the National Treasurer to the effect
Impoundment of funds refers to the President’s power that the revenue collections have exceeded the
to refuse to spend appropriations or to retain or revenue targets. In this case, no such certification was
deduct appropriations for whatever reason. secured before unprogrammed funds were used.
V. Yes. The Doctrine of Operative Fact, which c. P200 million: for the Vice-President; broken down to
recognizes the legal effects of an act prior to it being – P100 million for hard projects, P100 million for soft
declared as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, is projects.
applicable. The DAP has definitely helped stimulate the The PDAF articles in the GAA do provide
economy. It has funded numerous projects. If the for realignment of funds whereby certain cabinet
Executive is ordered to reverse all actions under the members may request for the realignment of funds
DAP, then it may cause more harm than good. The into their department provided that the request for
DAP effects can no longer be undone. The realignment is approved or concurred by the legislator
beneficiaries of the DAP cannot be asked to return concerned.
what they received especially so that they relied on Presidential Pork Barrel
the validity of the DAP. However, the Doctrine of The president does have his own source of fund albeit
Operative Fact may not be applicable to the authors, not included in the GAA. The so-called presidential
implementers, and proponents of the DAP if it is so pork barrel comes from two sources: (a)
found in the appropriate tribunals (civil, criminal, or the Malampaya Funds, from the Malampaya Gas
administrative) that they have not acted in good faith. Project – this has been around since 1976, and (b) the
Presidential Social Fund which is derived from the
Belgica vs. Ochoa (G.R. No. 208560, November 11, earnings of PAGCOR – this has been around since
2013) about 1983.
Pork Barrel Scam Controversy
Ever since, the pork barrel system has been besieged
Belgica et. Al., vs Ochoa et. Al., GR 208566 November by allegations of corruption. In July 2013, six whistle
19, 2013 blowers, headed by Benhur Luy, exposed that for the
last decade, the corruption in the pork barrel system
710 SCRA 1 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – Local had been facilitated by Janet Lim Napoles. Napoles had
Government – Invalid Delegation been helping lawmakers in funneling their pork barrel
Legislative Department – Invalid Delegation of funds into about 20 bogus NGO’s (non-government
Legislative Power organizations) which would make it appear that
This case is consolidated with G.R. No. 208493 government funds are being used in legit existing
and G.R. No. 209251. projects but are in fact going to “ghost” projects. An
The so-called pork barrel system has been around in audit was then conducted by the Commission on Audit
the Philippines since about 1922. Pork Barrel is and the results thereof concurred with the exposes of
commonly known as the lump-sum, discretionary Luy et al.
funds of the members of the Congress. It underwent Motivated by the foregoing, Greco Belgica and several
several legal designations from “Congressional Pork others, filed various petitions before the Supreme
Barrel” to the latest “Priority Development Assistance Court questioning the constitutionality of the pork
Fund” or PDAF. The allocation for the pork barrel is barrel system.
integrated in the annual General Appropriations ISSUES:
Act(GAA). I. Whether or not the congressional pork barrel system
Since 2011, the allocation of the PDAF has been done is constitutional.
in the following manner: II. Whether or not presidential pork barrel system is
a. P70 million: for each member of the lower house; constitutional.
broken down to – P40 million for “hard projects” HELD:
(infrastructure projects like roads, buildings, schools, I. No, the congressional pork barrel system is
etc.), and P30 million for “soft projects” (scholarship unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional because it
grants, medical assistance, livelihood programs, IT violates the following principles:
development, etc.); a. Separation of Powers
b. P200 million: for each senator; broken down to – As a rule, the budgeting power lies in Congress. It
P100 million for hard projects, P100 million for soft regulates the release of funds (power of the purse).
projects; The executive, on the other hand, implements the
laws – this includes the GAA to which the PDAF is a
part of. Only the executive may implement the law but that once the GAA is approved, the legislator can now
under the pork barrel system, what’s happening was identify the project to which he will appropriate his
that, after the GAA, itself a law, was enacted, the PDAF. Under such system, how can the president veto
legislators themselves dictate as to which projects the appropriation made by the legislator if the
their PDAF funds should be allocated to – a clear act of appropriation is made after the approval of the GAA –
implementing the law they enacted – a violation of the again, “Congress cannot choose a mode of budgeting
principle of separation of powers. (Note in the older which effectively renders the constitutionally-given
case of PHILCONSA vs Enriquez, it was ruled that pork power of the President useless.”
barrel, then called as CDF or the Countrywide d. Local Autonomy
Development Fund, was constitutional insofar as the As a rule, the local governments have the power to
legislators only recommend where their pork barrel manage their local affairs. Through their Local
funds go). Development Councils (LDCs), the LGUs can develop
This is also highlighted by the fact that in realigning the their own programs and policies concerning their
PDAF, the executive will still have to get the localities. But with the PDAF, particularly on the part of
concurrence of the legislator concerned. the members of the house of representatives, what’s
b. Non-delegability of Legislative Power happening is that a congressman can either bypass or
As a rule, the Constitution vests legislative power in duplicate a project by the LDC and later on claim it as
Congress alone. (The Constitution does grant the his own. This is an instance where the national
people legislative power but only insofar as the government (note, a congressman is a national officer)
processes of referendum and initiative are concerned). meddles with the affairs of the local government – and
That being, legislative power cannot be delegated by this is contrary to the State policy embodied in the
Congress for it cannot delegate further that which was Constitution on local autonomy. It’s good if that’s all
delegated to it by the Constitution. that is happening under the pork barrel system but
Exceptions to the rule are: worse, the PDAF becomes more of a personal fund on
(i) delegated legislative power to local government the part of legislators.
units but this shall involve purely local matters; II. Yes, the presidential pork barrel is valid.
(ii) authority of the President to, by law, exercise The main issue raised by Belgica et al against the
powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared presidential pork barrel is that it is unconstitutional
national policy in times of war or other national because it violates Section 29 (1), Article VI of the
emergency, or fix within specified limits, and subject to Constitution which provides:
such limitations and restrictions as Congress may No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in
impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, pursuance of an appropriation made by law.
tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or Belgica et al emphasized that the presidential pork
imposts within the framework of the national comes from the earnings of the Malampaya and
development program of the Government. PAGCOR and not from any appropriation from a
In this case, the PDAF articles which allow the particular legislation.
individual legislator to identify the projects to which The Supreme Court disagrees as it ruled that PD 910,
his PDAF money should go to is a violation of the rule which created the Malampaya Fund, as well as PD
on non-delegability of legislative power. The power to 1869 (as amended by PD 1993), which
appropriate funds is solely lodged in Congress (in the amended PAGCOR’s charter, provided for the
two houses comprising it) collectively and not lodged appropriation, to wit:
in the individual members. Further, nowhere in the (i) PD 910: Section 8 thereof provides that all fees,
exceptions does it state that the Congress can among others, collected from certain energy-related
delegate the power to the individual member of ventures shall form part of a special fund (the
Congress. Malampaya Fund) which shall be used to further
c. Principle of Checks and Balances finance energy resource development and for other
One feature in the principle of checks and balances is purposes which the President may direct;
the power of the president to veto items in the GAA (ii) PD 1869, as amended: Section 12 thereof provides
which he may deem to be inappropriate. But this that a part of PAGCOR’s earnings shall be allocated to
power is already being undermined because of the fact
a General Fund (the Presidential Social Fund) which became R.A. No. 7354 and that copies thereof in its
shall be used in government infrastructure projects. final form were not distributed among the members of
These are sufficient laws which met the requirement each House. Both the enrolled bill and the legislative
of Section 29, Article VI of the Constitution. The journals certify that the measure was duly enacted i.e.,
appropriation contemplated therein does not have to in accordance with Article VI, Sec. 26(2) of the
be a particular appropriation as it can be a general Constitution. We are bound by such official assurances
appropriation as in the case of PD 910 and PD 1869. from a coordinate department of the government, to
which we owe, at the very least, a becoming courtesy.

Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado (G.R. No. (3) The respondents counter that there is no
105371, November 11, 1993 discrimination because the law is based on a valid
classification in accordance with the equal protection
G.R. No. 105371 November 11, 1993 clause. In fact, the franking privilege has been
The Philippine Judges Association, etc., petitioners withdrawn not only from the Judiciary but also the
vs Hon. Pete Prado, etc., respondents Office of Adult Education, the Institute of National
Ponente: Cruz Language; the Telecommunications Office; etc.

Facts: (4) We are unable to agree with the respondents that

The petitioners are members of the mower courts who Section 35 of R.A. No. 7354 represents a valid exercise
feel that their official functions as judges will be of discretion by the Legislature under the police
prejudiced by the Section 35 of RA No. 7354 through power. On the contrary, we find its repealing clause to
Circular No. 92-98 withdrawing the franking privilege be a discriminatory provision that denies the Judiciary
from the SC, CA, RTC, MTCs and Land Registration of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed for all
Deeds and other government offices. persons or things similarly situated. The distinction
made by the law is superficial. It is not based on
Petitioners assails the constitutionality of RA No. 7354 substantial distinctions that make real differences
on the grounds: (1) its title embraces more than one between the Judiciary and the grantees of the franking
subject and does not express its purposes; (2) it did privilege.
not pass the required readings in both Houses of
Congress and printed copies of the bill in its final form
were not distributed among the members before its It is unconstitutional.
passage; and (3) it is discriminatory and encroaches on
the independence of the Judiciary. 26 Philconsa vs. Gimenez (G.R. No. L-23326, December
18, 1965)

Issue: the independence of the Judiciary.

Held:
(1) We are convinced that the withdrawal of the
franking privilege from some agencies is germane to
the accomplishment of the principal objective of R.A.
No. 7354, which is the creation of a more efficient and
effective postal service system. Our ruling is that, by
virtue of its nature as a repealing clause, Section 35 did
not have to be expressly included in the title of the
said law.

(2) Applying these principles, we shall decline to look

into the petitioners' charges that an amendment was
made upon the last reading of the bill that eventually