1

I. Introduction
Recent events have shocked and scandalized the nation. People were outraged upon knowing the
misuse of the Pork Barrel Funds or what we officially call the Priority Development Assistance Fund
(PDAF) by the Mother of all scams. There were rallies and movements from the different parts of the
Philippines signifying their resentment regarding the issue; after all, it involves the peoples money.
It started when the daughter, Jeane Napoles, of the said master mind of the P10 Billion Pork Barrel
Scam, Janet Lim Napoles, posted pictures in a social networking cite called Instagram showing her lavish
lifestyles including the purchase of luxurious shoes and dresses, riding limousines, owning a costly
condominium and many more. With that, investigations started and questions arose, how could someone
live in such a lavish lifestyle? This is now one the foremost issue in this country, the money that funded it all.
Now, not only Napoles is involved in this controversy, prominent names were dropped like Senators Jinggoy
Estrada, Ramon Bong Revilla, Jr., and Juan Ponce Enrile, Sr. and even those lawmakers not tainted with
any allegations of corruption were brought up like Congressman Matias Defensor. Their names were
involved since, at first, they were the one who endorsed the fake non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
but further investigations showed that they were also the one who signed the liquidation reports that cleared
the release of the said funds
1

People now want to abolish the practice of pork barrel. However, the question is, is the practice of
pork barrel unconstitutional to warrant its abolition? Supposing it is constitutional and cannot be abolished,
are the proposed solutions lawful and feasible? The pork barrel issue is not only a problem in one locality but
in the whole nation; and not only congressmen are involved here but also senators. And in any way one will
look at it, the people are the victim since it is their money that are misused and taken for granted by the said
people. The masses are now protesting may they be a professor, a student, an artist or a common man; they
are one with the idea of abolishing the pork barrel. This is important since everyone is affected even they
are just passive with regards to the problem.
This paper is not intended to choose a side between the pro and the anti in abolishing the pork
barrel. Its purpose is to give an idea to the readers and portray it in a legalistic view and in an impartial way in
discussing the pork barrel issue and some asserted solutions.


1
The Manila Times, September 2, 2013, p. A1,col. 1.
2

II. Background of the Study
The Pork Barrel system in the Philippines began in the 1930s with the adaption of its practice from
America. The term pork barrel is derived from the pre-Civil War practice of the periodical distribution of
salted pork contained in huge barrels to the place of the slaves.

The practice was further exercised during the Marcos Regime when such allocations were instituted
in the 8
th
Congress after the EDSA Revolution; however, unlike the American practice of the pork barrel, the
Philippines entertained changes to it such as setting parameters, equal apportionments, built-in accountability
and transparency. In 1989, the Mindanao Development Fund and Visayas Development Fund were created.
Each was financed with P 480 million and P240 million, correspondingly. Because of that, representatives
from Luzon questioned the said allocation and asserted that they, too, needed funds to support their local
projects. Since then, the Countrywide Development Fund (CDF) was created to finance national and local
projects. Consequently, this CDF was changed into, what we call now, Priority Development Assistance
Fund (PDAF)
2
.

The PDAF was created with a commendable purpose and that is to allow the lawmakers to identify
what projects they wanted to fund at the start and monitor it until its completion. The projects referred to
are those needed by the communities which are not prioritized by either the Local Government Units (LGUs)
or National Government Agencies (NGAs). But it did not end there, as like everything else. As mentioned
earlier, it started with a commendable purpose and now in an almost chaotic situation with the problem
starting in its implementation; there are funds which are misused and corrupted. Those are the funds that are
supposedly for the people but now benefits only a few. They are the very people who the citizens entrusted
to lift them up to the position they are in. Now, some law makers are drafting possible solutions to this
problem. Some proposed to ensure that the money will be spent for the public, some alleges that it is a
problem in the system and hence the solution should be a system or structural change and not just abolish the
pork barrel, and some is to, as the topic is, abolish the pork barrel system. But what is essential here is that,
this problem needs a solution and measures must be acted to ensure that such will not take place again. Many
may impose their solution but are they in accordance with the constitution and are they feasible?



2
Prospero Nograles & Edcel Lagman, Understanding the Pork Barrel, http://www.congress.gov.ph/download/14th/pork_barrel.
pdf, (last accessed Sept. 17, 2013).
3

III. Constitutionality of the PDAF and the Asserted Solutions

A. Constitutionality
The Constitutionality of the PDAF has been answered in jurisprudence specifically in Philippines
Constitution Association (PHILCONSA) versus Enriquez (GR No. 113105), Andres Sarmiento et al. versus
The Treasurer of the Philippines et al. (GR. No. 12568 and 126313), and Lawyers against Monopoly and
Poverty (LAMP), et al. versus the Secretary of Budget and Management, et al (GR. No. 164987).
In PHILCONSA versus Enriquez, the petitioners questioned the constitutionality of the Congress
power of proposing and identifying the projects and activities to be funded by the Country Wide
Development Fund (CDF). They alleged that such power is an encroachment by the legislature on the
executive power since the said power in an appropriation act is in implementation of a law. They further
contend that proposing and identifying projects do not involve creating laws or the repeal and amendment
thereof which is, according to them, the only power of the Congress vested by the Constitution. The
Supreme Court held that the power of the purse belongs to the Congress but is subject to the veto power of
the President; hence, the President may propose the budget, but the final say, regarding appropriations,
would remain in the Congress; the Supreme Court explained The power of appropriation carries with it the power to
specify the project or activity to be funded under the appropriation law. It can be as detailed and broad as Congress
wants it to be. It was Congress itself that determined the purposes for the appropriation. (Emphasis
Supplied).
As regards to the power of the Congress being recommendatory since the implementing power is
vested in the President, the Supreme Court, quoting verbatim, held:
Executive Function under the Countrywide Development Fund involves implementation of the priority
projects specified in the law. The authority given to the members of Congress is only to propose and identify
projects to be implemented by the President. Under Article XLI of the GAA of 1994, the President must
perforce examine whether the proposals submitted by the members of the Congress fall within the specific
items of expenditures for which the Fund was set up, and if qualified, he next determines whether they are in
line with other projects planned for the locality. Thereafter, if the proposed projects qualify for funding under
the Fund, it is the President who shall implement them. In short, the proposals and identifications made by the members
of Congress are merely recommendatory.
The Supreme Court also mentioned and explained the history or the reason for the GAAs manner
of appropriation, particularly when the Congress was vested with the function of proposing and identifying
4

the projects to be implemented by the President. They also assailed that the members of the Congress are
presumed to be more informed and familiar about the needs of their constituents compare to the President.
The Constitution is a framework of a workable government and its interpretation must take into account the
complexities, realities and politics attendant to the operation of the political branches of government. Prior to
the GAA of 1991, there was an uneven allocation of appropriations for the constituents of the members of
Congress, with the members close to the Congressional leadership or who hold cards for horse-trading,
getting more than their less favored colleagues. The members of Congress also had to reckon with an
unsympathetic President, who could exercise his veto power to cancel from the appropriation bill a pet project
of a Representative or Senator. The Countrywide Development Fund attempts to make equal the unequal. It is also a
recognition that individual members of Congress, far more than the President and their congressional colleagues, are likely to be
knowledgeable about the needs of their respective constituents and the priority to be given each project. (Emphasis supplied)
3
.
Overall, the Supreme Court recognized the constitutionality of the CDF.
In another case, Andres Sarmiento et. al. versus The Treasure of the Philippines et. al., the
petitioners seek the reversal of the Courts ruling in PHILCONSA versus Enriquez, which is the above cited
case. However, the court recognized its constitutionality assailing the Principle of Stare Decisis since the
petitioner merely reiterated the arguments in the PHILCONSA case; hence, the court did not find any
compelling reasons to review, much less reverse, the Courts ruling of the CDF.
On April 24, 2012, the Supreme Court restated its ruling on the previous cases regarding the
constitutionality of the pork barrel funds, renamed as the Priority Development Assistance Fund in LAMP
versus the Secretary of Budget and Management et al. The petitioners allege that the silence in the law of
direct or even indirect participation by members of the Congress prohibits an automatic or direct allocation
of lump sums to individual senators and congressmen for the funding of projects. In other words, it does not
empower individual members of Congress to propose, select, and identify programs and projects to be
funded out of the PDAF
4
. They further assert that the members of the Congress do not possess the power
to propose, select, and identify which projects are to be actually funded by the PDAF. In assailing its
constitutionality, the Court raised the presumption of validity of the acts of the congress. They mentioned
the case of Farinas versus Executive Secretary regarding the presumption of validity stating that every statute
is presumed valid. The presumption is that the legislature intended to enact a valid, sensible, and just law and
one which operates no further than may be necessary to effectuate the specific purpose of the law. Every
presumption should be indulged in favor of the constitutionality and the burden of proof is on the party alleging that there is a
clear and unequivocal breach of the constitution. In the present case, there was no showing that there is a clear and

3
Philippines Constitution Association v Enriquez., 235 SCRA 507 (1994).
4
Volume LVII, University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Civil Law, UST Law Review, 114-116 (2012)
5

unequivocal breach of the constitution, only a doubtful one; hence, the court must sustain legislation because
to invalidate [a law] based on xxx baseless supposition is an affront to the wisdom not only of the legislature
that passed it but also of the executive which approved it. Moreover, LAMP seeks the declaration of the
unconstitutionality of the PDAFs enforcement on the grounds that there was an encroachment by the
members of the Congress on executive power in proposing and identifying the projects to be funded by
PDAF. But then again, no convincing evidence was showed. In the absence of proof, the court is restricted
with its actions and cannot just strike down a law on the basis that the petitioner finds the practice as
offensive to the constitution.
In all the three cases, the Supreme Court held the constitutionality of the pork barrel funds. It was
even recognized and reported by an article in the newspaper particularly the Philippine Daily Inquirer that in
just a past decade, three cases where decided and declared the constitutionality of such funds
5
.
B. Asserted Solutions
As mentioned earlier, it is important that measures be put in place against those people who abuse
the system. The law making body has already started drafting possible solutions in respond to the pork barrel
issue and these are the following: the Government Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, Bottom
Up Budgeting Act of 2013, and the Full Disclosure Act of 2013.
Senate Bill No. 1488: An Act Requiring Full Disclosure of all Entities and Organizations Receiving
Funding from the Government or the Government Funding Accountability and Transparency Act.
Senate Bill No. 1488 is a bill proposed by Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago. The bill directs the
Secretary of Budget and Management to create and sustain a searchable website
6
which is available to the
public and which will contain relevant information on the PDAF projects and all other projects that receives
funds from the government to ensure reliance, transparency, and accountability in government expenditures.
The said bill is patterned after the United States Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) to
answer the problem of the governments uneconomical spending by making them liable to their decision
whether there is positive or negative result. The act is not a new action since the Philippines already have a

5
In the Know: SC recognized Pork Barrel funds as Constitutional, Philippine Daily Inquirer, (September 11, 2013),
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/481561/in-the-know-sc-recognized-pork-barrel-funds-as-constitutional
6
Searchable website means a website that allows the public to search and aggregate government funding by any element required by
section 3 (A); ascertain through a single search the total amount of government funding awarded to an entity by a government
award, by fiscal year; ascertain through a single search the total amount of government funding awarded to an entity by government
award, by fiscal year; and download data included in the outcome from searches S. No. 1488, 16
th
Cong. 1r Sess (Sept. 3, 2013).
6

website
7
where information about the PDAF is posted. However, this bill intends to improve it since, for the
author, the information posted in the said website is insufficient on the basis that the pork barrel issue took
place.
Now, the proposed website shall contain the awards given by the government and each will contain
the following:
(1) The name of the entity receiving the award;
(2) If the entity receiving the award is a nongovernment organization, corporation, association, partnership, or
other nongovernment entity, its corporate name, business address, and the names of its directors or trustees
and officers;
(3) The intended beneficiaries of the award;
(4) The amount of the award;
(5) Information on the award, including transaction type, funding agency, implementing agency, program
source, and an award title descriptive of the purpose of each funding action;
(6) If the award consists of allotment(s) from the PDAF, the name of the legislator who authorized the funding
of the project;
(7) Information on the contractor(s), subcontractor(s), and supplier(s), including corporate or business name,
business address, and the names of the proprietor(s), directors or trustees, and officers;
(8) The location of the entity receiving the award and the primary location of performance under the award,
including the barangay, city or municipality, province, region, and congressional district;
(9) A unique identifier of the entity receiving the award and of the parent entity of the recipient, should the
entity be owned by another entity;
(10) Status of the contract, project, or program-whether in progress or completed;
(11) Disbursements/awards/contracts made through Special Purpose Funds, such as but not limited to the
Budgetary Support to Government Corporations, Special Financial Assistance to Local Government Units
(LGUs), Miscellaneous Personnel Benefits Fund, Retirement Benefits Fund, and Priority Social and Economic
Projects (PSEP) Fund;
(12) Disbursement/awards/contracts made through Special Purpose Funds under the control of the President,
such as but not limited to the Contingency Fund and Calamity Fund;
(13) Disbursement/awards/contracts made from Internal Revenue Allotment to local government units;
(14) Disbursement/awards/contracts made from any lump-sum fund appropriated to the office of any public
officer, such as but not limited to Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses and Capital Outlay, regardless of
the amount involved;

7
www.dbm.gov.ph/
7

(15) Liquidation of Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses by public officers; and,
(16) Liquidation of budget allotted for the office of public officers; and
(17) Any other relevant information specified by the DBM.
It would also allow the people to leave a comment and recommendation for possible improvements
of such site. Furthermore, it is proposed that it will be updated not later than thirty (30) days after the award
of a government award requiring a posting.
The purpose of these numerous requirements is to prevent another contract to be awarded to some
bogus NGOs who receive awards without accomplishing the project required of them because these
organizations are being used by some people who are in the position and to benefit for their own.
Moreover, the reason of including such number of data in the website is to easily track the projects that were
initiated, to see whether such is real and whether the project is completed. As it appears, there is a significant
increase in the information added since its intention is to inform the people and watch over the funds.
In suggesting the said bill, she mentioned Article 3 Section 7 of the Constitution and Republic Act
No. 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act Section 3 to assert that the proposal is one that is in
line with the constitution and the law. They provide the following:
Article 3 Section 7 of the Constitution:
The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official
records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to
government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law.
Act No. 9184 Section 3
8
:
All procurement of the national government, its departments, bureaus, offices and agencies, including state
universities and colleges, government -owned and/or-controlled corporations (GOCCs), government financial
institutions and local government units, shall, in all cases, be governed by these principles:
(a) Transparency in the procurement process and III the implementation of procurement contracts;
(d) System of accountability where both the public officials directly or indirectly involved in the procurement
process as well as in the implementation of procurement contracts and the private parties that deal with
government are, when warranted by circumstances, investigated and held liable for their actions relative thereto
(e) Public monitoring of the procurement process and the implementation of awarded contracts with the end in
view of guaranteeing that these contracts are awarded pursuant to the provisions of this Act and its

8
An Act Providing For the Modernization, Standardization and Regulation of the Procurement Activities of the Government and For
Other Purposes, R.A. 9184, sec 3 (2003).
8

implementing rules and regulations, and that all these contracts are performed strictly according to
specifications.
The two provisions have similarities and that is to make public information about the use of
government funds to ensure reliance, transparency, and accountability in government expenditures in
accordance to the right of the people to information. It portrays a system embodying Fiscal Transparency
which, is defined as clarity, reliability, frequency, timeliness, and relevance of public fiscal reporting and the
openness to the public of the governments fiscal policy-making process
9
, is the goal of this bill. Over all, this
bill is to ensure that the people get to know where their money went, to ensure transparency and
accountability.
Senate Bill No. 1524: An Act Abolishing the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and
Institutionalizing Bottom up Budgeting in the Planning and Identification of Programs and Projects
to be Funded by The Annual General Appropriations Act.
Senate Bill No. 1524 or the Bottom-Up Budgeting Act of 2013 is a bill proposed by Senator Teofisto
TG Guingona III. It is the first bill that seeks to abolish the PDAF and promote the institutionalization of
the bottom-up budgeting to ensure greater transparency, accountability, and openness in the budget
preparation process through the involvement of the Civil Society Organizations (CSOs). With the
involvement of CSOs in the identification and planning of programs that will be funded by the annual
General Appropriations Act (GAA), it is said that it can be ensured that the annual appropriations of
National Government Agencies (NGAs) would be an instrument of development and reflective of local and
national objectives, strategies and plans
10
. In this sense, the bill showed that it has two objectives and these
are to institutionalize transparency and accountability and to ensure citizens participation in governance.
It suggests that, in achieving the above mentioned goals, there should be abolition of the Priority
Development Assistance Fund and the institutionalization of Bottom-Up Budgeting (BuB) which is an
approach in formulating the budget proposal of agencies, taking into consideration the development needs of
municipalities, and cities as identified in their respective local development plan and/or local anti-poverty
action plan formulated with the meaningful participations of CSOs
11
. On one hand, the Abolition of the
PDAF, in the pursuit of inclusive growth and poverty reduction and being in line with the first objective
which is transparency and accountability, is for the purpose of limiting the lawmakers discretion in using the

9
Supra note 5, at 6.
10
S. No. 1524, 16
th
Cong, 1t Sess (September 4, 2013).
11
Ibid/ Supra note 7, at 8
9

funds of the government and instead, of mostly benefiting some, will be allocated to the different NGAs. On
the other hand, the institutionalization of BuB, as mentioned earlier, involves the participation of CSOs in the
identification and planning of programs that will be funded by the annual GAA.
There will be different bodies that would be performing different essential functions in the said
proposal. First are the LGUs. They are tasked, together with the NGAs to formulate guidelines outlining the
framework for the accreditation of CSOs. Moreover, they must guarantee that the CSOs would be in active
participation throughout the process of BuB and to coordinate with the NGAs concerned in the preparation
of work and different financial plans. Next are the NGAs, who, as mentioned earlier, work hand in hand with
the LGUs in the formulation of guidelines for accreditation of CSOs and in the preparation of work and
different financial plans. The third group is the CSOs. Their participation is important since they are a
component in the planning and monitoring of projects that will be funded by the National Budget. They may
also head the completion of some projects in the barangay level provided that they have experience in the
execution of projects through a Community Driven Development (CDD) approach. A Co-Chairman and
members of Local Poverty Reduction Action Team (LPRAT) or Local Development Action Team (LDAT)
will be chosen from this group (CSO). Next group is the LPRAT or LDAP and they are in charge with the
formulation and monitoring of the Local Poverty Reduction Action Plan (LPRAP) or Local Development
Action Plan (LDAP); and lastly, are the Regional Poverty Reduction Action Teams (RPRATs). This body is
responsible in providing support and guidance to LGUs throughout the process and supervises the
implementation of BuB projects.
In addition to the previous process, the bill also requires the public and timely disclosure of Budget
Documents and other related data through its publication on websites or other public posting areas by LGU,
NGA, or GOCCs to enable the CSOs to participate knowledgeable.
In sum, the bill, to quote Senator Guigona, proposes that The abolition of the PDAF and the
institutionalization of BUB are two big steps that we can take to operationalize the Aquino administration's
slogan: Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap as it addresses the challenges of improving service delivery,
increasing government accountability, and more effective management of public resources.
12

House Bill No. 19: An Act Requiring Full Disclosure of All Information on Fiscal Management
From All National Government Departments, Bureaus, Agencies, and other Instrumentalities,

12
Sen. Guingona Files Bill to Abolish PDAF Proposed Measure Seeks To Institutionalize Bottom-Up Budgeting , Senate Press Release,
(September 5, 2013), http://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2013/0905_guingona1.asp
10

Including Government-Owned or Control Corporations, and their Subsidiaries, and Local
Governments, and Providing Penalties, for Violations Thereof and for Other Purposes.
House Bill No. 19 or the Full Disclosure Act of 2013 is a bill introduced by Honorable Maria Leonor
Robredo. It is patterned from the different principles of the previous issuances from the legislative and
executive department like the Department of the Interior and Local Governments (DILG) Memorandum
Circular No. 2010-83 by then Secretary Jesse Robredo ordering the LGUs and DILG regional offices to
report their finances reports as well as bids and public offerings. There were also some versions of this bill
passed by Senator Franklin Drilon and former House Representative Joseph Abaya. And, the National
Budget Circular 542 by the Department of Budget Management Secretary Florencio Abad which reiterates
the compliance to the mandatory provisions of the Transparency Seal where agencies are mandated to
maintain the seal on their official website
13
.
This bill, as having the same goals with the two previous senate bills, promotes good governance and
citizen empowerment. In promoting good governance, the law identifies what information should be
disclosed to the public without the need to be requested; and such documents are the governments budget
and financial transactions. It emphasizes the importance of knowing how the funds are managed, disbursed
and used. Furthermore, the bill imposes penalties for non-compliance to prevent public officials from
committing graft and corruption. Take note that this bill is not created to answer the problem regarding the
Pork Barrel issue. This is intended to provide measures for anti graft and corruption in upholding the
provision in the constitution, A Public Office is a Public Trust
14

The bill requires that all National Government departments, bureaus, agencies, and other
instrumentalities, including GOCCs, and their subsidiaries and local governments to disclose the following
documents and information; Section 5 of the bill provides:
a) All National Government departments, bureaus, agencies and all other instrumentalities are hereby
mandated to disclose the following documents and information:
(i) The mandates and functions of the agencies, offices and instrumentalities covered by this
Act.
(ii) Approved Annual Budget
(iii) Budget Execution Documents
(iv) Budget Accountability Reports
(v) Annual Procurement Plan
(vi) Invitation to Bid
(vii) Annual Financial Statements

13
H. No. 19, 16
th
Cong, 1t Sess (July 1, 2013).
14
CONST., art. XI, sec 1
11

(viii) Consolidated Bi-Annual Financial and narrative accomplishment reports
(ix) All other documents and information required to be made available to the public by law,
agency issuances, and local ordinances.

b) All Local Governments are hereby mandated to disclose the following documents and information:
(i) Approved Annual Budget
(ii) Utilization of the Special Education Fund
(iii) Utilization of the Local Disaster Risk Reduction Management Fund
(iv) Utilization of the Local Development Fund
(v) Utilization of the Trust Fund
(vi) Annual Financial Statements
(vii) Bi-Annual Financial and narrative accomplishment reports
Non-compliance would held the heads of the said departments, bureaus, agencies, and local chief,
executives and would be penalized by a fine amounting to five hundred thousand pesos (PHP 500,000). An
oversight committee would be responsible for the monitoring and supervision of the observance of the
provisions of this act. This committee will be composed of the Secretary of the Department of Budget and
Management, the Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government and The Secretary of the
Department of Finance (DOF).
Taken as a whole, the provisions of this bill seek to protect the people from the abuses or the spoils of
the system. As declared by the Congresswoman Robredo Funds are the hard-earned money of the people that
should be spent judiciously and only for the common good
15
.
IV. Analysis and Discussion
This section will show the provisions in the Constitution that are being upheld by the above
mentioned bills. This will also discuss and analyze some of the possible problems that might occur with
regards to the implementation of the bills.
The three bills presented earlier, Government Funding Accountability and Transparency Act,
Bottom-Up Budgeting Act of 2013, and the Full Disclosure Act of 2013, have a common goal and that is
transparency and accountability. Its purpose is enshrined in the constitution, specifically, Section 27 and 28
of Article II, Section 7 of Article III, Section 12, 16(4), and 20 of Article VI, Section 12 and 20 of Article VII,
Section 3 of Article IX-D, and Section 17 of Article XI. With regards to the Bottom-Up Budgeting Act of
2013 and the Full Disclosure Act of 2013, both bills have an added goal and that is citizen empowerment.
Citizen Empowerment is also enshrined in our constitution but this will be discussed vis--vis social justice.

15
Camille Diola, Leni Robredo's First Bill: Full disclosure in Gov't Transactions, Philstar.com, (July 1, 2013),
http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2013/07/01/960401/leni-robredos-first-bill-full-disclosure-govt-transactions
12

A. Transparency and Accountability
The Right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to
official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as
to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to
such limitations as may be provided by law
16
is a provision in the constitution that explicitly guarantees the
peoples right to information. It is based on the idea that informed citizens are the ones who will be the best
defender of the values of a democratic society like the Philippines. However, such right is limited. Some
public documents are declared confidential by certain laws. Nevertheless, laws that disallow disclosure of
public documents have the burden of proving that there is a need to withhold the information to secure vital
secrets that may affect the national interest and security. This constitutional provision is complemented with
States constitutional policies found in Section 28 and 27 of Article II which requires full public disclosure of
all the transactions involving public interest and maintaining honesty and integrity in the public service and
take positive and effective measures against graft and corruption, respectively. When fulfilled, the peoples
trust in the government may be strengthened and there will be an assurance that the funds will be used
efficiently for the nations development. This importance of this trust is best illustrated in an analogy of a
government to a three-storey building:
Popular Government is a magnificent three-storey building: the basic foundation is the people; the first story
is the Constitution which is the expression of their sovereignty; the second is the officialdom or a group of
caretakers of the edifice; and in the third and highest story is found the altar wherein is zealously kept and
guard the mystic fire which symbolizes the faith of the people.
The Collapse of the foundation means destruction of the entire building; collapse of the first story is necessarily
the collapse of the second and third stories and the consequent reversion to the architectonic wisdom of the
people; collapse of the second story - officialdom because of the misdeeds or disloyalty, is the demolition of
the faith of the people; and without faith no popular government can ever hope to live and survive.
17

In accordance with the above cited constitutional mandates, the following provisions are imposed.
With regards to the legislative department, the constitution obliges all the members of the Senate and the
House of Representative to make a full disclosure of their financial and business interests
18
, requires that each
house shall have a journal of its proceedings and publish the same
19
and that the records and books of
accounts of the Congress be preserved and be open to the public in accordance with law
20
. While on the

16
CONST., art. III, sec. 7.
17
Jose P. Laurel, Politico-social Problems, 23-24, (1936).
18
CONST., art. VI, sec. 12.
19
CONST., art. VI, sec. 16(4).
20
CONST., art. VI, sec. 20.
13

executive department, the law commands that the public shall be informed of the state of the Presidents
health in case of serious illness
21
and to submit to Congress a complete report of the decisions on applications
for loans to be contracted by the GOCCs which would have the effect of increasing the foreign debt
22
. In
addition to that, Section 3 of Article IX-D provides that No law shall be passed exempting any entity of the
Government or its subsidiary in any guise whatever, or any investment of public funds, from the jurisdiction
of the Commission on Audit. This provision instructs the Commission on Audit (COA) to audit and
examine all entities of the government or its subsidiaries with investment of public funds; any law that will
exempt such will be unconstitutional and void. Lastly, to ensure accountability, the constitution further
mandates that public officers or employees shall submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and
net worth
23
to see whether the increase in the net worth, knowing their source of income and reasonable
allowance, would result to a presumption that such increase are due to ill-gotten wealth and/or untaxed
income
24
.
The three bills discussed earlier are in line with the aforementioned provisions as it is shown that the
bills require specific information be publicized. They assailed that with the publication of such information,
people will be able to know where their money are being spent, that the people who abused their power will
be more mindful of their acts, and that there will be more chance of earlier discovery of such crimes. One of
the authors of the said bill, specifically Congresswoman Robredo said that if transparency and accountability
will be attained, it would give rise to Citizen Empowerment, which is the next subject.
B. Citizen Empowerment
Bottom-Up Budgeting Act of 2013 promotes citizen empowerment since, in the proposed bill, it
involves the participation of CSOs in the identification and planning of programs that will be funded by the
annual GAA while the Full Disclosure Act of 2013, as stated in its explanatory note, encourages citizen
empowerment through the creation of a more transparent and accountable government. Information will
empower our citizenry, and their empowerment will help bring about good governance toward a more
progressive society.
25
The Full Disclosure Act of 2013 has almost the same goals with Government Funding

21
CONST., art VII, sec 12.
22
CONST., art VII, sec 20.
23
CONST., art. XI, sec. 17.
24
Hector S. De Leon, Textbook on the Philippine Constitution, 495, (2008).
25
H. No. 19, 16
th
Cong, 1t Sess (July 1, 2013).
14

Accountability and Transparency Act; however, unlike the latter bill, the former explicitly stated that one of
its goals is to empower the citizen. Both of the bills gave emphases to reducing political inequalities.
The said bills, in promoting citizen empowerment through involving the CSOs in the identification
and planning of programs and by making the people informed, are constitutionally aligned since the
constitution calls for the establishment of a just and humane society and seeks to reduce the political and
economic power of those in office through equalizing opportunities for development. Section 9 of Article II
provides: The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and
independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through policies that provide adequate social
services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life for all. This
just and dynamic social order is supplied by the bills by, as mentioned earlier, making them participate in the
process of identification and planning programs that will be funded by the government.
C. The Stumbling Blocks
With regards to the Government Funding Accountability and Transparency Act and the Full
Disclosure Act of 2013, particularly in their proposal of having a searchable website which will be available to
the public and will contain information in relation to the disbursing of funds, just like the PDAF, it has a
laudable purpose and that is to inform the people of government spending, to see whether there are over
used and misplaced funds. Nevertheless, it would still be vulnerable to some external forces like hacking.
Last 2012, it was reported that the website of DBM, the same agency which would handle the website
proposed, was hacked
26
by some Chinese during the time of the dispute between their state and the
Philippines regarding the Scarborough Shoal. Not only is that prone to hackers, some required information
may also be falsified in the process. The data will surely be displayed but the credibility of the data is not
assured. They would be able to show where the money went but it is not sufficient to show how it is spent.
It may be easier to trace but, still, it will not solve the problem, it will just give a temporary cure. Prevention is
better than a cure.
Next is the abolition of the pork barrel proposed by Senator Guingona. He pointed out that there
should be measures to be put in place to prevent people in power to abuse the system; and he proposed to
start with the abolition of the PDAF and allocate it to NGAs. Since it is decided by the court in the above
cited cases that the identification of projects by the legislative body is constitutional; such abolition would be

26
Ira Pedrasa, DBM Website Hacked, http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/04/25/12/dbm-website-hacked (last accessed Oct. 2,
2013)
15

erroneous because one cannot prohibit a valid exercise of law but only regulate. Once a practice has been
declared constitutional, one cannot just merely propose its termination; a valid act cannot be prohibited but
only regulate while an invalid act cannot be regulated, only prohibit. Furthermore, according to Ronald B.
Dime, a lawyer, pork barrel cannot be abolished since abolishing the pork barrel for good as it would be
tantamount to prohibiting subsequent Congresses from exercising a power that is granted by the
Constitution. In that sense, it would seem that true abolition of the pork barrel would require the
amendment of the Constitution
27
.
V. Conclusion
The problem concerning the pork barrel has started not with a spark but with an instant flame that
burned the nation. It is a problem that the whole state was concerned and a measure has to be introduced.
This paper has two issues: Whether or not PDAF is constitutional and whether or not the assailed solutions
are feasible and constitutional.
The first issue has been answered by assailing three jurisprudences namely Philippines Constitution
Association (PHILCONSA) versus Enriquez (GR No. 113105), Andres Sarmiento et al. versus The Treasurer
of the Philippines et al. (GR. No. 12568 and 126313), and Lawyers against Monopoly and Poverty (LAMP),
et al. versus the Secretary of Budget and Management, et al (GR. No. 164987) and it is proved that PDAF is
constitutional. As a constitutional and valid practice, one cannot prohibit it but merely regulate; hence, the
assailed solution of abolishing the pork barrel cannot be justified. The other solutions, particularly Santiagos
and Robredos bill, proposed a solution that is constitutional and feasible, however, are still subject to
problems that could hinder its success. Moreover, their proposals do not necessarily solve the problem but
merely gives a temporary cure. What the nation needs are measures that could prevent the problem from
recurring and such solution would start not only on the people who abused their authority by changing their
ways but also on the people who votes for them; as believed by Hector De Leon, having honest Presidents
with the best of intentions is not enough to reduce corruption to minimal proportion. This perennial
problem cannot be solved by mere empty promises and congressional inquiries, but by prosecuting without
fear or favor and putting behind bars so-called big fishes found to be involved as concrete examples of the
governments determination to achieve decency in the public service
28
. The solutions one proposed must be
taken as a serious measure which should be studied carefully since the problem we have today are the
solutions they executed before; to reckon, the The Countrywide Development Fund attempts to make equal the unequal.

27
Ronald B. Dime, Why Pork is here to stay, http://www.kapatiranparty.org/why-pork-is-here-to-stay/ (last accessed Oct. 12, 2013)
28
Hector S. De Leon, Textbook on the Philippine Constitution, 113, (2008).