BELGICA vs OCHOA

G.R. No. 208566.November 19, 2013.*

FACTS: Ever since, the pork barrel system has been
besieged by allegations of corruption. In July 2013, six
whistle blowers, headed by Benhur Luy, exposed that for
the last decade, the corruption in the pork barrel system
had been facilitated by Janet Lim Napoles. Napoles had
been helping lawmakers in funneling their pork barrel
funds into about 20 bogus NGOs (non-government
organizations)
which would
make
it
appear
that
government funds are being used in legit existing projects
but are in fact going to ghost projects. An audit was then
conducted by the Commission on Audit and the results
thereof concurred with the exposes of Luy et al. Motivated
by the foregoing, Greco Belgica and several others, filed
various petitions before the Supreme Court questioning the
constitutionality of the pork barrel system.
1. What are the legal requisites for judicial inquiry
so that questions involving the constitutionality
or validity of a law or government act may be
heard and decided by the court?
a.
b.
c.
d.

there must be an actual case or controversy calling

for the exercise of judicial power;
the person challenging the act must have the
standing to question the validity of the subject act
or issuance;
the question of constitutionality must be raised at
the earliest opportunity; and
(d) the issue of constitutionality must be the very
lis mota of the case.

Of these requisites, case law states that the first

two are the most important and, therefore, shall be
discussed forthwith.
2. When is there an actual case or a controversy?
By constitutional fiat, judicial power operates only when
there is an actual case or controversy. This is embodied in
Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution which
pertinently states that [j]udicial power includes the duty
of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable x x x. Jurisprudence provides that an actual
case or controversy is one which involves a conflict of
legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims,
susceptible of judicial resolution as distinguished from a
hypothetical or abstract difference or dispute. In other
words, [t]here must be a contrariety of legal rights that
can be interpreted and enforced on the basis of existing
law and jurisprudence. Related to the requirement of an
actual case or controversy is the requirement of ripeness,
meaning that the questions raised for constitutional
scrutiny are already ripe for adjudication. A question is
ripe for adjudication when the act being challenged has
had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it.
It is a prerequisite that something had then been
accomplished or performed by either branch before a court
may come into the picture, and the petitioner must allege
the existence of an immediate or threatened injury to itself
as a result of the challenged action. Withal, courts will
decline to pass upon constitutional issues through advisory
opinions, bereft as they are of authority to resolve
hypothetical or moot questions.
3. Is the requirement of contrariety of legal rights
satisfied in this case?
YES. The requirement of contrariety of legal rights is clearly
satisfied by the antagonistic positions of the parties on the
constitutionality of the Pork Barrel System. Also, the
questions in these consolidated cases are ripe for
adjudication since the challenged funds and the provisions
allowing for their utilization such as the 2013 GAA for
the PDAF, PD 910 for the Malampaya Funds and PD 1869,
as amended by PD 1993, for the Presidential Social Fund
are currently existing and operational; hence, there exists
an immediate or threatened injury to petitioners as a result
of the unconstitutional use of these public funds.

4. Will the Presidents declaration that he had

already abolish the PDAF render the issues moot
and academic?
As for the PDAF, the Court must dispel the notion that the
issues related thereto had been rendered moot and
academic by the reforms undertaken by respondents. A
case becomes moot when there is no more actual
controversy between the parties or no useful purpose can
be served in passing upon the merits. Differing from this
description, the Court observes that respondents proposed
line-item budgeting scheme would not terminate the
controversy nor diminish the useful purpose for its
resolution since said reform is geared towards the 2014
budget, and not the 2013 PDAF Article which, being a
distinct subject matter, remains legally effective and
existing. Neither will the Presidents declaration that he
had already abolished the PDAF render the issues on
PDAF moot precisely because the Executive branch of
government has no constitutional authority to nullify or
annul its legal existence. By constitutional design, the
annulment or nullification of a law may be done either by
Congress, through the passage of a repealing law, or by
the Court, through a declaration of unconstitutionality.
5. Is the constitutionality of
System a political issue?

the

Pork

Barrel

No. A political question refers to those questions which,

under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in
their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full
discretionary authority has been delegated to the
Legislature or executive branch of the Government. It is
concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not
legality, of a particular measure. The intrinsic
constitutionality of the Pork Barrel System is not an issue
dependent upon the wisdom of the political branches of
government but rather a legal one which the Constitution
itself has commanded the Court to act upon. Scrutinizing
the contours of the system along constitutional lines is a
task that the political branches of government are
incapable of rendering precisely because it is an exercise of
judicial power. More importantly, the present Constitution
has not only vested the Judiciary the right to exercise
judicial power but essentially makes it a duty to proceed
therewith. Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution
cannot be any clearer: The judicial power shall be vested
in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be
established by law. [It] includes the duty of the courts of
justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which
are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
6. When
judiciary
mediates
to
allocate
constitutional boundaries, does it not assert any
superiority over the other departments?
No. It must also be borne in mind that when the judiciary
mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not
assert any superiority over the other departments; does
not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature
[or the executive], but only asserts the solemn and sacred
obligation assigned to it by the Constitution. To a great
extent, the Court is laudably cognizant of the reforms
undertaken by its co-equal branches of government. But it
is by constitutional force that the Court must faithfully
perform its duty. Ultimately, it is the Courts avowed
intention that a resolution of these cases would not arrest
or in any manner impede the endeavors of the two other
branches but, in fact, help ensure that the pillars of change
are erected on firm constitutional grounds. After all, it is in
the best interest of the people that each great branch of
government, within its own sphere, contributes its share
towards achieving a holistic and genuine solution to the
problems of society. For all these reasons, the Court cannot
heed respondents plea for judicial restraint.
7. Do petitioners have legal standing?
YES. The gist of the question of standing is whether a party
alleges such personal stake in the outcome of the
controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which
sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court
depends for illumination of difficult constitutional

questions. Unless a person is injuriously affected in any of

his constitutional rights by the operation of statute or
ordinance, he has no standing. Petitioners have come
before the Court in their respective capacities as citizentaxpayers and accordingly, assert that they dutifully
contribute to the coffers of the National Treasury. Clearly,
as taxpayers, they possess the requisite standing to
question the validity of the existing Pork Barrel System
under which the taxes they pay have been and continue to
be utilized. It is undeniable that petitioners, as taxpayers,
are bound to suffer from the unconstitutional usage of
public funds, if the Court so rules. Invariably, taxpayers
have been allowed to sue where there is a claim that public
funds are illegally disbursed or that public money is being
deflected to any improper purpose, or that public funds are
wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or
unconstitutional law, as in these cases.