Camille Angelica A.

Mendoza
Block 1C
Legal Technique Paper 1
Atty. Alrich Dy
February 11, 2016
This paper talks about the importance of history in relation to the
profession of law. It talks about the doctrine of stare decisis and if past
precedent should always hold taking into consideration the rules laid
down in court and the reasons behind these rules.
The best moments in reading are when you come across
something a thought, a feeling, a way of looking at things which
you had thought special and particular to you. Now here it is, set down
by someone else, a person you have never met, and it is as if a hand
has come out and taken yours.1
Learning and studying history has many advantages. First, we get to
learn past events that are relevant to the development of society. We
get to appreciate how relevant and controversial issues are solved,
which would guide the people should a similar issue arises in the
future. This is especially true to those who are engaged in the
profession of law.
The doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere has been used
many times in our courts. It means from settled precedents, there
must be no departure2. The doctrine of stare decisis has long been
adopted by our courts through Article 8 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines which states that: Judicial decisions applying or interpreting
the laws or the Constitution shall form part of the legal system of the
Philippines.3 What this doctrine teaches us is that when a court has
once laid down a principle, it should be applied to all future cases,
should the facts and issues involved be substantially the same. This
doctrine accords our courts not only efficiency and convenience, but
also stability. Clearly, there would be no reason to dwell into issues that
have already been resolved by the court for this only wastes time and
effort, especially in the light of the numerous cases our courts handle
day per day.
1 Jones, D. et. al. (Producer) & Hytner, N. (Director) & Bennett, A.
(Writer). (2006). The History Boys [Motion Picture]. United Kingdom:
Fox Searchlight Pictures.
2 Evangelista, F. J. and Aquino, D. R. (2015). Legal Logic. Quezon City:
Central Books, p 26.
3 The Civil Code of the Philippines [Civil Code], Republic Act No. 386,
art 8.

Second, it is important to know our history because it teaches us how

circumstances can change peoples behaviors and perception of things.
Throughout the years, we have seen numerous changes in our daily
lives. Technology for example, has developed in such a fast pace that
cybercrime cases have become so numerous that there was a need for
the legislature to enact an anti-cybercrime law to address these
crimes. Another example is litigation. In the past, people solve issues
through litigation to determine if a person is guilty and thus liable for
damages. Today, alternative dispute resolutions such as mediation and
arbitration has become increasingly popular. Not only is it more
convenient, it also proves to be a better solution because it saves the
parties time, effort and emotional distress. An example will be a case
on slight physical injury. The penalty for slight physical injury is arresto
menor or a fine not exceeding Php 200 4. On the other hand, attorneys
fees could be as high as Php 5,000 per appearance, maybe even
greater. With these things in mind, a practical solution in this case
would be to settle the dispute through mediation.
Third, it is important to know our history so we could see not only how
laws have developed but also the reasons behind these laws. As
mentioned earlier, judicial decisions form part of the law of the land.
This is so because the Judiciary interpret the law, and the doctrines
they have set are supposed to guide the bar, the bench and the public
in general. However, times are always changing and we have to
respond to the changes brought by it. Stare decisis, as mentioned,
dictates that once an issue is settled by the courts, future cases will
follow the same principle if the facts and issues of the case are
substantially the same. The reason behind this doctrine is to ensure
the stability or judicial processes and to strengthen our justice system. 5
With this in mind, we should always remember that the reason behind
stare decisis is to accord the parties justice within the shortest period
of time. Should a case be presented and it is substantially similar to a
precedent case, the same ruling should apply so that justice will be
served as soon as possible. However, there are instances where past
precedents do not always hold. Therefore it is very important to note
that this doctrine does not elicit blind adherence to precedents.6

4 The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines [Penal Code], Republic Act
No 3815, art 266.
5 Supra at 2, p 30.
6 Ibid. p 27.

The case of Belgica v Ochoa 7 as compared to Philconsa v Enriquez 8

fully strengthens my three reasons on why it is important to study
history in relation with the doctrine of stare decisis and the reason
behind this doctrine.
Philconsa v Enriquez
RA 7663 or the General Appropriations Act of 1994 was approved by
the President but he vetoed certain provisions of the law and imposed
certain provisional conditions.
After the vetoing by the president of some provisions of the GAA of
1994, neither House of Congress took steps to override the veto.
The petitioners in this case claimed that the power given to the
members of Congress to propose and identify the projects and
activities to be funded by the Countrywide Development Plan is an
encroachment by the legislative on executive power.
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the power given to
the members of the Congress to propose and identify the projects and
activities to be funded by the Countrywide Development Plan as they
were merely recommendatory. Under the General Appropriations Act of
1994, the President must examine whether the proposals submitted by
the members of the Congress fall within the specific items for
expenditures for which the Countrywide Development Fund was
created for. Thus, what the Congress actually does is to recommend
projects and it is the President who decides whether such
recommendations are proper and whether or not they should be
implemented.
Therefore, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the
Countrywide Development Fund because it was held that the
legislature did not encroach on executive power and thus there was no
violation of the separation of powers doctrine.
Belgica v Ochoa
In this case the NBI began its probe into allegations that the
government has been defrauded of some P10B over the past 10 years
by a syndicate using funds from the pork barrel of lawmakers and
various government agencies sometime in 2013. This sprung from
sworn affidavits of 6 whistle-blowers attesting that JLN (Janet Lim
Napoles) Corporation had swindled billions of pesos for ghost
projects using 20 dummy non-government organizations and that said
7 Belgica v Ochoa, G.R. No. 208566 [2013].
8 Philconsa v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 113105 [1994].

money was diverted to Napoles private account. Whistleblowers also

allege that P900M from the Presidential Pork Barrel allocated for the
gas project in Palawan went into a dummy non-government
organization.
This case discussed the two types of pork barrel the Congressional
Pork Barrel and the Presidential Pork Barrel. In both cases, there was a
lump sum, discretionary fund where the legislators and the president
are able to control certain aspects of the funds utilization through
various post-enactment measures or practices.
The petitioners in this case claim the Priority Development Assistance
Fund, as a whole, is unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court held that the Priority Development Assistance
Fund, and the pork barrel system as a whole, as unconstitutional.
Under the 2013 PDAF Article, legislators could, after the GAA is passed,
effectively appropriate PDAF funds based on their own discretion. This
means that actual items of PDAF appropriation would not have been
written into the GAA and thus effectuated without veto consideration.
The system then forces the President to decide between accepting the
entire allocation without knowing the specific projects of the
legislators, which may or may not be consistent with his national
agenda or rejecting the whole PDAF to the detriment of all other
legislations with legitimate projects.
In the cases mentioned above, both revolve around the issue of the
constitutionality of the pork barrel, which was termed as Countrywide
Development Fund (CDF) in Philconsa v Enriquez, and as Priority
Disbursement Assistance Fund (PDAF) in Belgica v Ochoa. Although
both cases contain substantially similar facts and issues, stare decisis
cannot apply because Philconsa resolves mainly around the separation
of powers of the three branches of the government, specifically on the
power of the Congress to make recommendations on what projects
should be included in General Appropriations Act. On the other hand,
the case of Belgica the whole Pork Barrel system was placed under
scrutiny. The complexity of the issues raised in the Belgica case and
the gravity of evidences presented are sufficient grounds in dismissing
the doctrine of stare decisis.
It is important to note that in Belgica, there were changes in
circumstances that we should note down. First, the actions of the
members of the Congress shifted from being merely recommendatory
into an encroachment of executive power. This is because the
members of Congress now receives a lump sum and they decide where
to allocate these funds and at the same time implement the same.

Second, the existence of whistleblowers and their account of how

public funds are swindled for ghost projects using dummy nongovernment agencies and that the scheme is committed through the
efforts of Janet Lim Napoles had effected a chilling effect on the
justices of the Supreme Court. This is because the allegations that the
pork barrel system as a source of corruption is now backed by strong
evidence and the money involved amounted to billions of pesos.
The best moments in reading are when you come across
something a thought, a feeling, a way of looking at things which
you had thought special and particular to you. Now here it is, set down
by someone else, a person you have never met, and it is as if a hand
has come out and taken yours.9
I started this paper with this quote because it relates to the doctrine of
stare decisis. Those engaged in the profession of law fully knows that it
is important to know not only the law but also relevant jurisprudence.
This is because the existence of a past precedent, especially when
they favor the client of the lawyer, gives the latter a sense of relief
because the precedent further strengthens his case by virtue of stare
decisis.
As mentioned, in stare decisis, the Court was able to settle a
controversy which now serves as a guide for the bar, bench and public.
Future cases could now be resolves on the basis of past precedent.
Thus as if a hand has come out and taken yours.
However, it is more important to take into consideration the reasons
behind how these doctrines came to be. This is because at the end of
the day, the business of the judiciary is to assure fulfillment of the
promise that justice shall be done and is done.10 Therefore we should
always be careful not to adhere to past precedents blindly. To
summarize, in the cases cited above, we should take into consideration
that circumstances have changed the case on the pork barrel system
and there are now strong evidences that show how it is used as a tool
for corruption. It should not then be decided based on stare decisis
because the existence of the lump-sum scheme and the whistleblowers
now show us that what is under scrutiny is the pork barrel system as a
whole.

9 Supra at 1.
10 Hubert Webb v De Leon, G.R. No. 121234 [1995].