Pimentel v. Ochoa | G.R. No. 195770 | July 17, 2012 | Perlas-Bernabe, J.

Petitioners: Aquilino Pimentel Jr., et al.

Respondents: Exec. Sec. Paquito Ochoa and DSWD

SUMMARY: Supra case concerning the 4Ps of DSWD, which provided cash grants to extremely poor households. Petitioner
avers that the program should not be implemented because it amounted to a recentralization of government functions
that have already been devolved from the national government to LGUs. The SC denied the petition, ruling that local
autonomy was not violated in this case because the national government has not completely relinquished all its power
over LGUs.

FACTS:

 In 2007, the DSWD embarked on a poverty reduction strategy with the poorest of the poor as target beneficiaries.
Dubbed "Ahon Pamilyang Pilipino," it was pre-pilot tested in the municipalities of Sibagat and Esperanza in
Agusan del Sur; the municipalities of Lopez Jaena and Bonifacio in Misamis Occidental, the Caraga Region, and
the Pasay and Caloocan upon the release of P50M under a Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) issued by the
DBM.
 July 16, 2008: DSWD issued AO 16, series of 2008, setting the implementing guidelines for the project renamed
"Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program" (4Ps), also referred to as CCTP, which provides cash grants to extremely
poor households to allow the members of the families to meet certain human development goals. Under this
program, eligible households selected from priority target areas are granted health and education benefits for a
total annual subsidy of P15k.
o AO 16 also institutionalized a coordinated inter-agency network among DepEd, DOH, DILG, the National
Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC) and LGUs. DSWD as lead implementing agency “oversees and
coordinates the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of the program” while the LGU is
responsible for the availability of health and education supply, and providing technical assistance for the
Program implementation, among others.
o DSWD executed MOAs with each participating LGU to outline the obligation of both parties during the 5-
year implementation period. Congress then provided funding for the project.
 Former Senator Aquilino Pimentel Jr. filed this petition seeking to enjoin DSWD from implementing the program
and disbursing public funds for this purpose, averring that the local autonomy of the LGUs was violated because
the provision of basic services and facilities has already been devolved to the LGUs under Sec. 17, LGC.

ISSUES + RULING:

1. W/N the violates Article II, Sec. 25 and Article X, Sec. 3 of the 1987 Constitution in relation to Sec. 17 of the LGC
of 1991 by providing for the recentralization of the National Government in the delivery of basic services
already devolved to the LGUs. NO

o The LGC does not imply a complete relinquishment of central government powers on the matter of
providing basic facilities and services. The national government is not precluded from taking a direct
hand in the formulation and implementation of national development programs especially where it is
implemented locally in coordination with the LGUs concerned.
o The petitioners argued that the manner by which the CCTP (renamed to 4Ps) is implemented is
questionable.
 It is the LGU’s responsibility to deliver social welfare, agriculture, and health care services.
 Giving DSWD full control over the identification of beneficiaries and the manner by which
services are to be delivered or conditionalities are to be complied with would have enhanced its
delivery of basic services. This results in the "recentralization" of basic government functions”,
which is contrary to the precepts of local autonomy and the policy of decentralization.
o SC: Petitioners have failed to discharge the burden of proving the invalidity of the provisions under the
GAA of 2011.
  The Constitution declares it a policy of the State to ensure the autonomy of local governments (
Sec 3, Sec 14 Art 10 1987 Constitution). To fully secure to the LGUs the genuine and meaningful
autonomy that would develop them into self-reliant communities, Sec. 17, LGC vested upon the
LGUs the duties and functions pertaining to the delivery of basic services and facilities.
 However, par (c) of Sec 17 provides a categorical exception of cases involving nationally-funded
projects, facilities, programs and services.
o Ganzon v. CA - while it is through a system of decentralization that the State shall promote a more
responsive and accountable local government structure, the concept of local autonomy does not imply
the conversion of local government units into "mini - states." With local autonomy, the Constitution did
nothing more than "to break up the monopoly of the national government over the affairs of the local
government" and, thus, did not intend to sever "the relation of partnership and interdependence
between the central administration and local government units.”

Disposition: Petition dismissed.