Belgica v.

Ochoa
Facts:
On August 16, 2013, the Commission on Audit (CoA) released the results of a three-
year audit investigation covering the use of legislators' PDAF from 2007 to 2009, or
during the last three (3) years of the Arroyo administration. The purpose of the
audit was to determine the propriety of releases of funds under PDAF and the
Various Infrastructures including Local Projects (VILP) 1100 00 by the DBM, the
application of these funds and the implementation of projects by the appropriate
implementing agencies and several government-owned-and-controlled
corporations (GOCCs). The CoA found that there was several anomalies in the
expenditure of the funds audited.
Spurred in large part by the findings contained in the CoA Report and the Napoles
controversy, several petitions were lodged before the Court similarly seeking that
the "Pork Barrel System" be declared unconstitutional.
Issues:
Whether or not:
(a) the issues raised in the consolidated petitions involve an actual and justiciable
controversy;
(b) the issues raised in the consolidated petitions are matters of policy not subject
to judicial review
Held:
(a) The prevailing rule in constitutional litigation is that no question involving the
constitutionality or validity of a law or governmental act may be heard and decided
by the Court unless there is compliance with the legal requisites for judicial inquiry,
1117 17 namely: ( a ) there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the
exercise of judicial power; ( b ) the person challenging the act must have the
standing to question the validity of the subject act or issuance; ( c ) 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.
By constitutional at, judicial power operates only when there is an actual case or
controversy. 1120 20 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. "[T]here must be aa contrariety of legal rights that
can be interpreted and enforced on contrariety of legal rights that can be
interpreted and enforced on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence." Related
to the requirem n ent 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."
Based on these principles, the Court finds that there exists an actual and justiciable
controversy in these cases. 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.
Even on the assumption of mootness, jurisprudence, nevertheless, dictates that
"the 'moot and academic' principle is not a magical formula that can automatically
dissuade the Court in resolving a case." The Court will decide cases, otherwise
moot, if: first, there is a grave violation of the Constitution; second, the exceptional
character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved; third,
when the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles
to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and fourth, the case is capable of
repetition yet evading review.
The applicability of the first exception is clear from the fundamental posture of
petitioners — they essentially allege grave violations of the Constitution with
respect to, in t e r alia , the principles of separation of powers, non-delegability of
legislative power, checks and balances, accountability and local autonomy.
The applicability of the second exception is also apparent from the nature of the
interests involved — the constitutionality of the very system within which
significant amounts of public funds have been and continue to be utilized and
expended undoubtedly presents a situation of exceptional character as well as a
matter of paramount public interest.
The Court also finds the third exception to be applicable largely due to the practical
need for a definitive ruling on the system's constitutionality. As disclosed during
the Oral Arguments, the CoA Chairperson estimates that thousands of notices of
disallowances will be issued by her ofce in connection with the findings made in the
CoA Report. In this relation, Associate Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen (Justice
Leonen) pointed out that all of these would eventually find their way to the courts.
1132 32 Accordingly, there is a compelling need to formulate controlling principles
relative to the issues raised herein in order to guide the bench, the bar, and the
public, not just for the expeditious resolution of the anticipated disallowance cases,
but more importantly, so that the government may be guided on how public funds
should be utilized in accordance with constitutional principles.
Finally, the application of the fourth exception is called for by the recognition that
the preparation and passage of the national budget is, by constitutional
imprimatur, an affair of annual occurrence. 37 The myriad of issues underlying the
manner in which certain public funds are spent, if not resolved at this most
opportune time, are capable of repetition and hence, must not evade judicial
review

(b) 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." 1141 41 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 he 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.