Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 203335 February 11, 2014
JOSE JESUS M. DISINI, JR., ROEN! S. DISINI, "I!NNE I#$ P. MEDIN!,
J!NETTE TOR!" a%& ERNESTO SONIDO, JR., Petitioners,
vs.
T'E SECRET!R$ OF JUSTICE, T'E SECRET!R$ OF T'E DEP!RTMENT OF T'E
INTERIOR !ND "OC!" GO#ERNMENT, T'E E(ECUTI#E DIRECTOR OF T'E
INFORM!TION !ND COMMUNIC!TIONS TEC'NO"OG$ OFFICE, T'E C'IEF OF
T'E P'I"IPPINE N!TION!" PO"ICE a%& T'E DIRECTOR OF T'E N!TION!"
)URE!U OF IN#ESTIG!TION, Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
G.R. No. 2032**
"OUIS +)!RO,+ C. )IR!OGO, Petitioner,
vs.
N!TION!" )URE!U OF IN#ESTIG!TION a%& P'I"IPPINE N!TION!" PO"ICE,
Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
G.R. No. 20330-
!"!) NG M!M!M!'!$!G .!"!M/, 'U,UM!N NG M!M!M!$!N MO#EMENT,
INC., JERR$ S. $!P, )ERTENI +TOTO+ C!USING, 'ERN!NI 0. CU!RE, PERC$
"!PID, TR!C$ C!)RER!, RON!"DO E. RENT!, CIRI"O P. S!)!RRE, JR.,
DER#IN C!STRO, ET !"., Petitioners,
vs.
OFFICE OF T'E PRESIDENT, re1re2e%3e& by Pre24&e%3 )e%45%o S46eo% !7u4%o III,
SEN!TE OF T'E P'I"IPPINES, a%& 'OUSE OF REPRESENT!TI#ES, Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
G.R. No. 20335*
SEN!TOR TEOFISTO D" GUINGON! III, Petitioner,
vs.
E(ECUTI#E SECRET!R$, T'E SECRET!R$ OF JUSTICE, T'E SECRET!R$ OF
T'E DEP!RTMENT OF INTERIOR !ND "OC!" GO#ERNMENT, T'E C'IEF OF
T'E P'I"IPPINE N!TION!" PO"ICE, a%& DIRECTOR OF T'E N!TION!"
)URE!U OF IN#ESTIG!TION, Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
G.R. No. 203389
!"E(!NDER !DONIS, E""EN TORDESI""!S, M!. GISE"! ORDENES:
C!SCO"!N, '. '!RR$ ". RO0UE, JR., ROME" R. )!G!RES, a%& GI")ERT T.
!NDRES, Petitioners,
vs.
T'E E(ECUTI#E SECRET!R$, T'E DEP!RTMENT OF )UDGET !ND
M!N!GEMENT, T'E DEP!RTMENT OF JUSTICE, T'E DEP!RTMENT OF T'E
INTERIOR !ND "OC!" GO#ERNMENT, T'E N!TION!" )URE!U OF
IN#ESTIG!TION, T'E P'I"IPPINE N!TION!" PO"ICE, !ND T'E INFORM!TION
!ND COMMUNIC!TIONS TEC'NO"OG$ OFFICE:DEP!RTMENT OF SCIENCE
!ND TEC'NO"OG$, Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
G.R. No. 2033*1
'ON. R!$MOND #. P!"!TINO, 'ON. !NTONIO TINIO, #ENCER M!RI
CRISOSTOMO OF !N!,)!$!N, M!. ,!T'ERINE E"ON! OF T'E P'I"IPPINE
CO""EGI!N, IS!)E""E T'ERESE )!GUISI OF T'E N!TION!" UNION OF
STUDENTS OF T'E P'I"IPPINES, ET !"., Petitioners,
vs.
P!0UITO N. OC'O!, JR., 4% ;42 <a1a<43y a2 E=e<u34>e Se<re3ary a%& a?3er:e5o o@
Pre24&e%3 )e%45%o S46eo% !7u4%o III, "EI"! DE "IM! 4% ;er <a1a<43y a2 Se<re3ary o@
Ju234<e, Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
G.R. No. 203408
)!GONG !"$!NS!NG M!,!)!$!N SECRET!R$ GENER!" REN!TO M. RE$ES,
JR., Na34o%a? !r3423 )IEN#ENIDO ". "UM)ER!, C;a4r1er2o% o@ Co%<er%e& !r34232 o@
3;e P;4?4114%e2, E"MER C. "!)OG, C;a4r1er2o% o@ ,4?u2a%5 Mayo U%o, CRISTIN! E.
P!"!)!$, Se<re3ary Ge%era? o@ ,ara1a3a%, FERDIN!ND R. G!ITE, C;a4r1er2o% o@
COUR!GE, JOE" ). M!G"UNSOD, #4<e Pre24&e%3 o@ !%aA1aB42 Par3y:"423, "!N! R.
"IN!)!N, Se<re3ary Ge%era? Gabr4e?a o6e%C2 Par3y, !DO"FO !RES P. GUTIERRED,
a%& JU"IUS G!RCI! M!TI)!G, Petitioners,
vs.
)ENIGNO SIMEON C. !0UINO III, Pre24&e%3 o@ 3;e Re1ub?4< o@ 3;e P;4?4114%e2,
P!0UITO N. OC'O!, JR., E=e<u34>e Se<re3ary, SEN!TE OF T'E P'I"IPPINES,
re1re2e%3e& by SEN!TE PRESIDENT JU!N PONCE ENRI"E, 'OUSE OF
REPRESENT!TI#ES, re1re2e%3e& by SPE!,ER FE"ICI!NO )E"MONTE, JR., "EI"!
DE "IM!, Se<re3ary o@ 3;e De1ar36e%3 o@ Ju234<e, "OUIS N!PO"EON C. C!S!M)RE,
E=e<u34>e D4re<3or o@ 3;e I%@or6a34o% a%& Co66u%4<a34o%2 Te<;%o?o5y O@@4<e,
NONN!TUS C!ES!R R. ROJ!S, D4re<3or o@ 3;e Na34o%a? )ureau o@ I%>e2345a34o%,
DEGEN. NIC!NOR !. )!RTO"OME, C;4e@ o@ 3;e P;4?4114%e Na34o%a? Po?4<e, M!NUE"
!. RO(!S II, Se<re3ary o@ 3;e De1ar36e%3 o@ 3;e I%3er4or a%& "o<a? Go>er%6e%3,
Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
G.R. No. 203440
ME"ENCIO S. ST!. M!RI!, SEDFRE$ M. C!NDE"!RI!, !MP!RIT! ST!. M!RI!,
R!$ P!O"O J. S!NTI!GO, GI")ERT #. SEM)R!NO, a%& R$!N JEREMI!' D.
0U!N .a?? o@ 3;e !3e%eo 'u6a% R45;32 Ce%3er/, Petitioners,
vs.
'ONOR!)"E P!0UITO OC'O! 4% ;42 <a1a<43y a2 E=e<u34>e Se<re3ary, 'ONOR!)"E
"EI"! DE "IM! 4% ;er <a1a<43y a2 Se<re3ary o@ Ju234<e, 'ONOR!)"E M!NUE"
RO(!S 4% ;42 <a1a<43y a2 Se<re3ary o@ 3;e De1ar36e%3 o@ I%3er4or a%& "o<a? Go>er%6e%3,
T;e C'IEF o@ 3;e P;4?4114%e Na34o%a? Po?4<e, T;e DIRECTOR o@ 3;e Na34o%a? )ureau o@
I%>e2345a34o% .a?? o@ 3;e E=e<u34>e De1ar36e%3 o@ Go>er%6e%3/, Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
G.R. No. 203453
N!TION!" UNION OF JOURN!"ISTS OF T'E P'I"IPPINES .NUJP/, P'I"IPPINE
PRESS INSTITUTE .PPI/, CENTER FOR MEDI! FREEDOM !ND RESPONSI)I"IT$,
ROEN! C!RR!ND! P!R!!N, ME"IND! 0UINTOS:DE JESUS, JOSEP' !"$N
!")URO, !RIE" SE)E""INO !ND T'E PETITIONERS IN T'E e:PETITION
;331FEEBBB.%uG1.or5E%o:3o:ra10185E, Petitioners,
vs.
T'E E(ECUTI#E SECRET!R$, T'E SECRET!R$ OF JUSTICE, T'E SECRET!R$
OF T'E INTERIOR !ND "OC!" GO#ERNMENT, T'E SECRET!R$ OF )UDGET
!ND M!N!GEMENT, T'E DIRECTOR GENER!" OF T'E P'I"IPPINE N!TION!"
PO"ICE, T'E DIRECTOR OF T'E N!TION!" )URE!U OF IN#ESTIG!TION, T'E
C$)ERCRIME IN#ESTIG!TION !ND COORDIN!TING CENTER, !ND !""
!GENCIES !ND INSTRUMENT!"ITIES OF GO#ERNMENT !ND !"" PERSONS
!CTING UNDER T'EIR INSTRUCTIONS, ORDERS, DIRECTION IN RE"!TION TO
T'E IMP"EMENT!TION OF REPU)"IC !CT NO. 10185, Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
G.R. No. 203454
P!U" CORNE"IUS T. C!STI""O H R$!N D. !NDRES, Petitioners,
vs.
T'E 'ON. SECRET!R$ OF JUSTICE T'E 'ON. SECRET!R$ OF INTERIOR !ND
"OC!" GO#ERNMENT, Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
G.R. No. 2034-*
!NT'ON$ I!N M. CRUDI M!RCE"O R. "!NDIC'OI )ENJ!MIN NOE" !. ESPIN!I
M!RC, RON!"D C. RIMORINI JU"IUS D. ROC!SI O"I#ER RIC'!RD #.
RO)I""OI !!RON ERIC, !. "OD!D!I GER!RD !DRI!N P. M!GN!$EI JOSE
REGIN!"D !. R!MOSI M!. ROS!RIO T. JU!NI )REND!"$N P. R!MIREDI
M!UREEN !. 'ERMIT!NIOI ,RISTINE JO$ S. REMENTI""!I M!RICE" O.
GR!$I JU"IUS I#!N F. C!)IGONI )ENR!"P' S. $UI CE)U )"OGGERS SOCIET$,
INC. PRESIDENT RU)EN ). "ICER!, JRI a%& PINO$ E(P!TEOF )"OG !!RDS,
INC. COORDIN!TOR PEDRO E. R!'ONI Petitioners,
vs.
'IS E(CE""ENC$ )ENIGNO S. !0UINO III, 4% ;42 <a1a<43y a2 Pre24&e%3 o@ 3;e
Re1ub?4< o@ 3;e P;4?4114%e2I SEN!TE OF T'E P'I"IPPINES, re1re2e%3e& by 'ON.
JU!N PONCE ENRI"E, 4% ;42 <a1a<43y a2 Se%a3e Pre24&e%3I 'OUSE OF
REPRESENT!TI#ES, re1re2e%3e& by FE"ICI!NO R. )E"MONTE, JR., 4% ;42 <a1a<43y
a2 S1eaAer o@ 3;e 'ou2e o@ Re1re2e%3a34>e2I 'ON. P!0UITO N. OC'O!, JR., 4% ;42
<a1a<43y a2 E=e<u34>e Se<re3aryI 'ON. "EI"! M. DE "IM!, 4% ;er <a1a<43y a2 Se<re3ary
o@ Ju234<eI 'ON. "OUIS N!PO"EON C. C!S!M)RE, 4% ;42 <a1a<43y a2 E=e<u34>e
D4re<3or, I%@or6a34o% a%& Co66u%4<a34o%2 Te<;%o?o5y O@@4<eI 'ON. NONN!TUS
C!ES!R R. ROJ!S, 4% ;42 <a1a<43y a2 D4re<3or, Na34o%a? )ureau o@ I%>e2345a34o%I a%&
PEDGEN. NIC!NOR !. )!RTO"OME, 4% ;42 <a1a<43y a2 C;4e@, P;4?4114%e Na34o%a?
Po?4<e, Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
G.R. No. 203501
P'I"IPPINE )!R !SSOCI!TION, INC., Petitioner,
vs.
'IS E(CE""ENC$ )ENIGNO S. !0UINO III, 4% ;42 o@@4<4a? <a1a<43y a2 Pre24&e%3 o@ 3;e
Re1ub?4< o@ 3;e P;4?4114%e2I 'ON. P!0UITO N. OC'O!, JR., 4% ;42 o@@4<4a? <a1a<43y a2
E=e<u34>e Se<re3aryI 'ON. "EI"! M. DE "IM!, 4% ;er o@@4<4a? <a1a<43y a2 Se<re3ary o@
Ju234<eI "OUIS N!PO"EON C. C!S!M)RE, 4% ;42 o@@4<4a? <a1a<43y a2 E=e<u34>e
D4re<3or, I%@or6a34o% a%& Co66u%4<a34o%2 Te<;%o?o5y O@@4<eI NONN!TUS C!ES!R R.
ROJ!S, 4% ;42 o@@4<4a? <a1a<43y a2 D4re<3or o@ 3;e Na34o%a? )ureau o@ I%>e2345a34o%I a%&
DIRECTOR GENER!" NIC!NOR !. )!RTO"OME, 4% ;42 o@@4<4a? <a1a<43y a2 C;4e@ o@
3;e P;4?4114%e Na34o%a? Po?4<e, Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
G.R. No. 20350*
)!$!N MUN! REPRESENT!TI#E NERI J. CO"MEN!RES, Petitioner,
vs.
T'E E(ECUTI#E SECRET!R$ P!0UITO OC'O!, JR., Respondent.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
G.R. No. 203515
N!TION!" PRESS C"U) OF T'E P'I"IPPINES, INC. re1re2e%3e& by )ENN$ D.
!NTIPORD! 4% ;42 <a1a<43y a2 Pre24&e%3 a%& 4% ;42 1er2o%a? <a1a<43y, Petitioner,
vs.
OFFICE OF T'E PRESIDENT, PRES. )ENIGNO SIMEON !0UINO III,
DEP!RTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEP!RTMENT OF INTERIOR !ND "OC!"
GO#ERNMENT, P'I"IPPINE N!TION!" PO"ICE, N!TION!" )URE!U OF
IN#ESTIG!TION, DEP!RTMENT OF )UDGET !ND M!N!GEMENT !ND !""
OT'ER GO#ERNMENT INSTRUMENT!"ITIES 'O '!#E '!NDS IN T'E
P!SS!GE !NDEOR IMP"EMENT!TION OF REPU)"IC !CT 10185, Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
G.R. No. 203519
P'I"IPPINE INTERNET FREEDOM !""I!NCE, <o61o2e& o@ D!,I"!:P'I"IPPINE
CO""ECTI#E FOR MODERN 'EROISM, re1re2e%3e& by "e%4 #e?a2<o, P!RTIDO
"!,!S NG M!S!, re1re2e%3e& by Ce2ar S. Me?e%<4o, FR!NCIS EUSTON R. !CERO,
M!R"ON !NT'ON$ ROM!S!NT! TONSON, TEODORO !. C!SIJO, NOEMI
"!RDID!)!":D!DO, IME"D! OR!"ES, J!MES M!TT'E ). MIR!F"OR, JU!N
G.M. R!GR!GIO, M!RI! F!TIM! !. #I""EN!, MED!RDO M. M!NRI0UE, JR.,
"!UREN D!DO, M!RCO #ITTORI! TO)I!S SUM!$!O, IRENE C'I!, ER!STUS
NOE" T. DE"IDO, CRISTIN! S!R!' E. OSORIO, ROMEO F!CTO"ERIN, N!OMI ".
TUP!S, ,ENNET' ,ENG, !N! !"E(!NDR! C. C!STRO, Petitioners,
vs.
T'E E(ECUTI#E SECRET!R$, T'E SECRET!R$ OF JUSTICE, T'E SECRET!R$
OF INTERIOR !ND "OC!" GO#ERNMENT, T'E SECRET!R$ OF SCIENCE !ND
TEC'NO"OG$, T'E E(ECUTI#E DIRECTOR OF T'E INFORM!TION
TEC'NO"OG$ OFFICE, T'E DIRECTOR OF T'E N!TION!" )URE!U OF
IN#ESTIG!TION, T'E C'IEF, P'I"IPPINE N!TION!" PO"ICE, T'E 'E!D OF
T'E DOJ OFFICE OF C$)ERCRIME, a%& T'E OT'ER MEM)ERS OF T'E
C$)ERCRIME IN#ESTIG!TION !ND COORDIN!TING CENTER, Respondents.
D E C ! " N
!)!D, J.:
#hese consolidated petitions see$ to declare several provisions of Republic Act %R.A.& '(')*, the
C+bercri,e Prevention Act of -('-, unconstitutional and void.
#he .acts and the Case
#he c+bercri,e la/ ai,s to re0ulate access to and use of the c+berspace. 1sin0 his laptop or
co,puter, a person can connect to the internet, a s+ste, that lin$s hi, to other co,puters and
enable hi,, a,on0 other thin0s, to2
'. Access virtual libraries and enc+clopedias for all $inds of infor,ation that he needs for
research, stud+, a,use,ent, uplift,ent, or pure curiosit+3
-. Post billboard-li$e notices or ,essa0es, includin0 pictures and videos, for the 0eneral
public or for special audiences li$e associates, class,ates, or friends and read postin0s
fro, the,3
4. Advertise and pro,ote 0oods or services and ,a$e purchases and pa+,ents3
5. n6uire and do business /ith institutional entities li$e 0overn,ent a0encies, ban$s,
stoc$ exchan0es, trade houses, credit card co,panies, public utilities, hospitals, and
schools3 and
*. Co,,unicate in /ritin0 or b+ voice /ith an+ person throu0h his e-,ail address or
telephone.
#his is c+berspace, a s+ste, that acco,,odates ,illions and billions of si,ultaneous and
on0oin0 individual accesses to and uses of the internet. #he c+berspace is a boon to the need of
the current 0eneration for 0reater infor,ation and facilit+ of co,,unication. But all is not /ell
/ith the s+ste, since it could not filter out a nu,ber of persons of ill /ill /ho /ould /ant to use
c+berspace technolo0+ for ,ischiefs and cri,es. "ne of the, can, for instance, avail hi,self of
the s+ste, to un7ustl+ ruin the reputation of another or bull+ the latter b+ postin0 defa,ator+
state,ents a0ainst hi, that people can read.
And because lin$in0 /ith the internet opens up a user to co,,unications fro, others, the ill-
,otivated can use the c+berspace for co,,ittin0 theft b+ hac$in0 into or surreptitiousl+
accessin0 his ban$ account or credit card or defraudin0 hi, throu0h false representations. #he
/ic$ed can use the c+berspace, too, for illicit traffic$in0 in sex or for exposin0 to porno0raph+
0uileless children /ho have access to the internet. .or this reason, the 0overn,ent has a
le0iti,ate ri0ht to re0ulate the use of c+berspace and contain and punish /ron0doin0s.
Notabl+, there are also those /ho /ould /ant, li$e vandals, to /rea$ or cause havoc to the
co,puter s+ste,s and net/or$s of indispensable or hi0hl+ useful institutions as /ell as to the
laptop or co,puter pro0ra,s and ,e,ories of innocent individuals. #he+ acco,plish this b+
sendin0 electronic viruses or virtual d+na,ites that destro+ those co,puter s+ste,s, net/or$s,
pro0ra,s, and ,e,ories. #he 0overn,ent certainl+ has the dut+ and the ri0ht to prevent these
to,fooleries fro, happenin0 and punish their perpetrators, hence the C+bercri,e Prevention
Act.
But petitioners clai, that the ,eans adopted b+ the c+bercri,e la/ for re0ulatin0 undesirable
c+berspace activities violate certain of their constitutional ri0hts. #he 0overn,ent of course
asserts that the la/ ,erel+ see$s to reasonabl+ put order into c+berspace activities, punish
/ron0doin0s, and prevent hurtful attac$s on the s+ste,.
Pendin0 hearin0 and ad7udication of the issues presented in these cases, on .ebruar+ *, -('4 the
Court extended the ori0inal '-(-da+ te,porar+ restrainin0 order %#R"& that it earlier issued on
"ctober 8, -('-, en7oinin0 respondent 0overn,ent a0encies fro, i,ple,entin0 the c+bercri,e
la/ until further orders.
#he ssues Presented
Petitioners challen0e the constitutionalit+ of the follo/in0 provisions of the c+bercri,e la/ that
re0ard certain acts as cri,es and i,pose penalties for their co,,ission as /ell as provisions that
/ould enable the 0overn,ent to trac$ do/n and penali9e violators. #hese provisions are2
a. !ection 5%a&%'& on lle0al Access3
b. !ection 5%a&%4& on Data nterference3
c. !ection 5%a&%:& on C+ber-s6uattin03
d. !ection 5%b&%4& on dentit+ #heft3
e. !ection 5%c&%'& on C+bersex3
f. !ection 5%c&%-& on Child Porno0raph+3
0. !ection 5%c&%4& on 1nsolicited Co,,ercial Co,,unications3
h. !ection 5%c&%5& on ;ibel3
i. !ection * on Aidin0 or Abettin0 and Atte,pt in the Co,,ission of C+bercri,es3
7. !ection : on the Penalt+ of "ne De0ree <i0her3
$. !ection ) on the Prosecution under both the Revised Penal Code %RPC& and R.A.
'(')*3
l. !ection = on Penalties3
,. !ection '- on Real-#i,e Collection of #raffic Data3
n. !ection '4 on Preservation of Co,puter Data3
o. !ection '5 on Disclosure of Co,puter Data3
p. !ection '* on !earch, !ei9ure and Exa,ination of Co,puter Data3
6. !ection ') on Destruction of Co,puter Data3
r. !ection '8 on Restrictin0 or Bloc$in0 Access to Co,puter Data3
s. !ection -( on "bstruction of >ustice3
t. !ection -5 on C+bercri,e nvesti0ation and Coordinatin0 Center %CCC&3 and
u. !ection -:%a& on CCC?s Po/ers and .unctions.
!o,e petitioners also raise the constitutionalit+ of related Articles 4*4, 4*5, 4:', and 4:- of the
RPC on the cri,e of libel.
#he Rulin0s of the Court
!ection 5%a&%'&
!ection 5%a&%'& provides2
!ection 5. C+bercri,e "ffenses. @ #he follo/in0 acts constitute the offense of c+bercri,e
punishable under this Act2
%a& "ffenses a0ainst the confidentialit+, inte0rit+ and availabilit+ of co,puter data and s+ste,s2
%'& lle0al Access. @ #he access to the /hole or an+ part of a co,puter s+ste, /ithout ri0ht.
Petitioners contend that !ection 5%a&%'& fails to ,eet the strict scrutin+ standard re6uired of la/s
that interfere /ith the funda,ental ri0hts of the people and should thus be struc$ do/n.
#he Court has in a /a+ found the strict scrutin+ standard, an A,erican constitutional construct,'
useful in deter,inin0 the constitutionalit+ of la/s that tend to tar0et a class of thin0s or persons.
Accordin0 to this standard, a le0islative classification that i,per,issibl+ interferes /ith the
exercise of funda,ental ri0ht or operates to the peculiar class disadvanta0e of a suspect class is
presu,ed unconstitutional. #he burden is on the 0overn,ent to prove that the classification is
necessar+ to achieve a co,pellin0 state interest and that it is the least restrictive ,eans to protect
such interest.- ;ater, the strict scrutin+ standard /as used to assess the validit+ of la/s dealin0
/ith the re0ulation of speech, 0ender, or race as /ell as other funda,ental ri0hts, as expansion
fro, its earlier applications to e6ual protection.4
n the cases before it, the Court finds nothin0 in !ection 5%a&%'& that calls for the application of
the strict scrutin+ standard since no funda,ental freedo,, li$e speech, is involved in punishin0
/hat is essentiall+ a conde,nable act @ accessin0 the co,puter s+ste, of another /ithout ri0ht.
t is a universall+ conde,ned conduct.5
Petitioners of course fear that this section /ill 7eopardi9e the /or$ of ethical hac$ers,
professionals /ho e,plo+ tools and techni6ues used b+ cri,inal hac$ers but /ould neither
da,a0e the tar0et s+ste,s nor steal infor,ation. Ethical hac$ers evaluate the tar0et s+ste,?s
securit+ and report bac$ to the o/ners the vulnerabilities the+ found in it and 0ive instructions
for ho/ these can be re,edied. Ethical hac$ers are the e6uivalent of independent auditors /ho
co,e into an or0ani9ation to verif+ its boo$$eepin0 records.*
Besides, a client?s en0a0e,ent of an ethical hac$er re6uires an a0ree,ent bet/een the, as to the
extent of the search, the ,ethods to be used, and the s+ste,s to be tested. #his is referred to as
the A0et out of 7ail free card.A: !ince the ethical hac$er does his 7ob /ith prior per,ission fro,
the client, such per,ission /ould insulate hi, fro, the covera0e of !ection 5%a&%'&.
!ection 5%a&%4& of the C+bercri,e ;a/
!ection 5%a&%4& provides2
!ection 5. C+bercri,e "ffenses. @ #he follo/in0 acts constitute the offense of c+bercri,e
punishable under this Act2
%a& "ffenses a0ainst the confidentialit+, inte0rit+ and availabilit+ of co,puter data and s+ste,s2
x x x x
%4& Data nterference. @ #he intentional or rec$less alteration, da,a0in0, deletion or deterioration
of co,puter data, electronic docu,ent, or electronic data ,essa0e, /ithout ri0ht, includin0 the
introduction or trans,ission of viruses.
Petitioners clai, that !ection 5%a&%4& suffers fro, overbreadth in that, /hile it see$s to
discoura0e data interference, it intrudes into the area of protected speech and expression, creatin0
a chillin0 and deterrent effect on these 0uaranteed freedo,s.
1nder the overbreadth doctrine, a proper 0overn,ental purpose, constitutionall+ sub7ect to state
re0ulation, ,a+ not be achieved b+ ,eans that unnecessaril+ s/eep its sub7ect broadl+, thereb+
invadin0 the area of protected freedo,s.) But !ection 5%a&%4& does not encroach on these
freedo,s at all. t si,pl+ punishes /hat essentiall+ is a for, of vandalis,,= the act of /illfull+
destro+in0 /ithout ri0ht the thin0s that belon0 to others, in this case their co,puter data,
electronic docu,ent, or electronic data ,essa0e. !uch act has no connection to 0uaranteed
freedo,s. #here is no freedo, to destro+ other people?s co,puter s+ste,s and private
docu,ents.
All penal la/s, li$e the c+bercri,e la/, have of course an inherent chillin0 effect, an in terrore,
effect8 or the fear of possible prosecution that han0s on the heads of citi9ens /ho are ,inded to
step be+ond the boundaries of /hat is proper. But to prevent the !tate fro, le0islatin0 cri,inal
la/s because the+ instill such $ind of fear is to render the state po/erless in addressin0 and
penali9in0 sociall+ har,ful conduct.'( <ere, the chillin0 effect that results in paral+sis is an
illusion since !ection 5%a&%4& clearl+ describes the evil that it see$s to punish and creates no
tendenc+ to inti,idate the free exercise of one?s constitutional ri0hts.
Besides, the overbreadth challen0e places on petitioners the heav+ burden of provin0 that under
no set of circu,stances /ill !ection 5%a&%4& be valid.'' Petitioner has failed to dischar0e this
burden.
!ection 5%a&%:& of the C+bercri,e ;a/
!ection 5%a&%:& provides2
!ection 5. C+bercri,e "ffenses. @ #he follo/in0 acts constitute the offense of c+bercri,e
punishable under this Act2
%a& "ffenses a0ainst the confidentialit+, inte0rit+ and availabilit+ of co,puter data and s+ste,s2
x x x x
%:& C+ber-s6uattin0. @ #he ac6uisition of do,ain na,e over the internet in bad faith to profit,
,islead, destro+ the reputation, and deprive others fro, re0isterin0 the sa,e, if such a do,ain
na,e is2
%i& !i,ilar, identical, or confusin0l+ si,ilar to an existin0 trade,ar$ re0istered /ith the
appropriate 0overn,ent a0enc+ at the ti,e of the do,ain na,e re0istration3
%ii& dentical or in an+ /a+ si,ilar /ith the na,e of a person other than the re0istrant, in
case of a personal na,e3 and
%iii& Ac6uired /ithout ri0ht or /ith intellectual propert+ interests in it.
Petitioners clai, that !ection 5%a&%:& or c+ber-s6uattin0 violates the e6ual protection clause'- in
that, not bein0 narro/l+ tailored, it /ill cause a user usin0 his real na,e to suffer the sa,e fate
as those /ho use aliases or ta$e the na,e of another in satire, parod+, or an+ other literar+
device. .or exa,ple, supposin0 there exists a /ell $no/n billionaire-philanthropist na,ed A>ulio
Bandolfo,A the la/ /ould punish for c+ber-s6uattin0 both the person /ho re0isters such na,e
because he clai,s it to be his pseudo-na,e and another /ho re0isters the na,e because it
happens to be his real na,e. Petitioners clai, that, considerin0 the substantial distinction
bet/een the t/o, the la/ should reco0ni9e the difference.
But there is no real difference /hether he uses A>ulio BandolfoA /hich happens to be his real
na,e or use it as a pseudo-na,e for it is the evil purpose for /hich he uses the na,e that the la/
conde,ns. #he la/ is reasonable in penali9in0 hi, for ac6uirin0 the do,ain na,e in bad faith to
profit, ,islead, destro+ reputation, or deprive others /ho are not ill-,otivated of the ri0htful
opportunit+ of re0isterin0 the sa,e. #he challen0e to the constitutionalit+ of !ection 5%a&%:& on
0round of denial of e6ual protection is baseless.
!ection 5%b&%4& of the C+bercri,e ;a/
!ection 5%b&%4& provides2
!ection 5. C+bercri,e "ffenses. @ #he follo/in0 acts constitute the offense of c+bercri,e
punishable under this Act2
x x x x
b& Co,puter-related "ffenses2
x x x x
%4& Co,puter-related dentit+ #heft. @ #he intentional ac6uisition, use, ,isuse, transfer,
possession, alteration, or deletion of identif+in0 infor,ation belon0in0 to another, /hether
natural or 7uridical, /ithout ri0ht2 Provided2 that if no da,a0e has +et been caused, the penalt+
i,posable shall be one %'& de0ree lo/er.
Petitioners clai, that !ection 5%b&%4& violates the constitutional ri0hts to due process and to
privac+ and correspondence, and trans0resses the freedo, of the press.
#he ri0ht to privac+, or the ri0ht to be let alone, /as institutionali9ed in the '8=) Constitution as
a facet of the ri0ht protected b+ the 0uarantee a0ainst unreasonable searches and sei9ures.'4 But
the Court ac$no/led0ed its existence as earl+ as '8:= in Morfe v. Mutuc,'5 it ruled that the ri0ht
to privac+ exists independentl+ of its identification /ith libert+3 it is in itself full+ deservin0 of
constitutional protection.
Relevant to an+ discussion of the ri0ht to privac+ is the concept $no/n as the ACones of
Privac+.A #he Court explained in An the Matter of the Petition for ssuance of Drit of <abeas
Corpus of !abio v. !enator BordonA'* the relevance of these 9ones to the ri0ht to privac+2
Cones of privac+ are reco0ni9ed and protected in our la/s. Dithin these 9ones, an+ for, of
intrusion is i,per,issible unless excused b+ la/ and in accordance /ith custo,ar+ le0al
process. #he ,eticulous re0ard /e accord to these 9ones arises not onl+ fro, our conviction that
the ri0ht to privac+ is a Aconstitutional ri0htA and Athe ri0ht ,ost valued b+ civili9ed ,en,A but
also fro, our adherence to the 1niversal Declaration of <u,an Ri0hts /hich ,andates that, Ano
one shall be sub7ected to arbitrar+ interference /ith his privac+A and Aever+one has the ri0ht to
the protection of the la/ a0ainst such interference or attac$s.A
#/o constitutional 0uarantees create these 9ones of privac+2 %a& the ri0ht a0ainst unreasonable
searches': and sei9ures, /hich is the basis of the ri0ht to be let alone, and %b& the ri0ht to privac+
of co,,unication and correspondence.') n assessin0 the challen0e that the !tate has
i,per,issibl+ intruded into these 9ones of privac+, a court ,ust deter,ine /hether a person has
exhibited a reasonable expectation of privac+ and, if so, /hether that expectation has been
violated b+ unreasonable 0overn,ent intrusion.'=
#he usual identif+in0 infor,ation re0ardin0 a person includes his na,e, his citi9enship, his
residence address, his contact nu,ber, his place and date of birth, the na,e of his spouse if an+,
his occupation, and si,ilar data.'8 #he la/ punishes those /ho ac6uire or use such identif+in0
infor,ation /ithout ri0ht, i,plicitl+ to cause da,a0e. Petitioners si,pl+ fail to sho/ ho/
0overn,ent effort to curb co,puter-related identit+ theft violates the ri0ht to privac+ and
correspondence as /ell as the ri0ht to due process of la/.
Also, the char0e of invalidit+ of this section based on the overbreadth doctrine /ill not hold
/ater since the specific conducts proscribed do not intrude into 0uaranteed freedo,s li$e speech.
Clearl+, /hat this section re0ulates are specific actions2 the ac6uisition, use, ,isuse or deletion
of personal identif+in0 data of another. #here is no funda,ental ri0ht to ac6uire another?s
personal data.
.urther, petitioners fear that !ection 5%b&%4& violates the freedo, of the press in that 7ournalists
/ould be hindered fro, accessin0 the unrestricted user account of a person in the ne/s to secure
infor,ation about hi, that could be published. But this is not the essence of identit+ theft that
the la/ see$s to prohibit and punish. Evidentl+, the theft of identit+ infor,ation ,ust be intended
for an ille0iti,ate purpose. Moreover, ac6uirin0 and disse,inatin0 infor,ation ,ade public b+
the user hi,self cannot be re0arded as a for, of theft.
#he Court has defined intent to 0ain as an internal act /hich can be established throu0h the overt
acts of the offender, and it ,a+ be presu,ed fro, the furtive ta$in0 of useful propert+ pertainin0
to another, unless special circu,stances reveal a different intent on the part of the perpetrator.-(
As such, the press, /hether in 6uest of ne/s reportin0 or social investi0ation, has nothin0 to fear
since a special circu,stance is present to ne0ate intent to 0ain /hich is re6uired b+ this !ection.
!ection 5%c&%'& of the C+bercri,e ;a/
!ection 5%c&%'& provides2
!ec. 5. C+bercri,e "ffenses.@ #he follo/in0 acts constitute the offense of c+bercri,e
punishable under this Act2
x x x x
%c& Content-related "ffenses2
%'& C+bersex.@ #he /illful en0a0e,ent, ,aintenance, control, or operation, directl+ or indirectl+,
of an+ lascivious exhibition of sexual or0ans or sexual activit+, /ith the aid of a co,puter
s+ste,, for favor or consideration.
Petitioners clai, that the above violates the freedo, of expression clause of the Constitution.-'
#he+ express fear that private co,,unications of sexual character bet/een husband and /ife or
consentin0 adults, /hich are not re0arded as cri,es under the penal code, /ould no/ be
re0arded as cri,es /hen done Afor favorA in c+berspace. n co,,on usa0e, the ter, AfavorA
includes A0racious $indness,A Aa special privile0e or ri0ht 0ranted or conceded,A or Aa to$en of
love %as a ribbon& usuall+ /orn conspicuousl+.A-- #his ,eanin0 0iven to the ter, AfavorA
e,braces sociall+ tolerated tr+sts. #he la/ as /ritten /ould invite la/ enforce,ent a0encies into
the bedroo,s of ,arried couples or consentin0 individuals.
But the deliberations of the Bica,eral Co,,ittee of Con0ress on this section of the C+bercri,e
Prevention Act 0ive a proper perspective on the issue. #hese deliberations sho/ a lac$ of intent
to penali9e a Aprivate sho/in0 x x x bet/een and a,on0 t/o private persons x x x althou0h that
,a+ be a for, of obscenit+ to so,e.A-4 #he understandin0 of those /ho dre/ up the c+bercri,e
la/ is that the ele,ent of Aen0a0in0 in a businessA is necessar+ to constitute the ille0al
c+bersex.-5 #he Act actuall+ see$s to punish c+ber prostitution, /hite slave trade, and
porno0raph+ for favor and consideration. #his includes interactive prostitution and porno0raph+,
i.e., b+ /ebca,.-*
#he sub7ect of !ection 5%c&%'&Elascivious exhibition of sexual or0ans or sexual activit+Eis not
novel. Article -(' of the RPC punishes Aobscene publications and exhibitions and indecent
sho/s.A #he Anti-#raffic$in0 in Persons Act of -((4 penali9es those /ho A,aintain or hire a
person to en0a0e in prostitution or porno0raph+.A-: #he la/ defines prostitution as an+ act,
transaction, sche,e, or desi0n involvin0 the use of a person b+ another, for sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct in exchan0e for ,one+, profit, or an+ other consideration.-)
#he case of No0ales v. People-= sho/s the extent to /hich the !tate can re0ulate ,aterials that
serve no other purpose than satisf+ the ,ar$et for violence, lust, or porno0raph+.-8 #he Court
/ei0hed the propert+ ri0hts of individuals a0ainst the public /elfare. Private propert+, if
containin0 porno0raphic ,aterials, ,a+ be forfeited and destro+ed. ;i$e/ise, en0a0in0 in sexual
acts privatel+ throu0h internet connection, perceived b+ so,e as a ri0ht, has to be balanced /ith
the ,andate of the !tate to eradicate /hite slaver+ and the exploitation of /o,en.
n an+ event, consentin0 adults are protected b+ the /ealth of 7urisprudence delineatin0 the
bounds of obscenit+.4( #he Court /ill not declare !ection 5%c&%'& unconstitutional /here it
stands a construction that ,a$es it appl+ onl+ to persons en0a0ed in the business of ,aintainin0,
controllin0, or operatin0, directl+ or indirectl+, the lascivious exhibition of sexual or0ans or
sexual activit+ /ith the aid of a co,puter s+ste, as Con0ress has intended.
!ection 5%c&%-& of the C+bercri,e ;a/
!ection 5%c&%-& provides2
!ec. 5. C+bercri,e "ffenses. @ #he follo/in0 acts constitute the offense of c+bercri,e
punishable under this Act2
x x x x
%c& Content-related "ffenses2
x x x x
%-& Child Porno0raph+. E #he unla/ful or prohibited acts defined and punishable b+ Republic
Act No. 8))* or the Anti-Child Porno0raph+ Act of -((8, co,,itted throu0h a co,puter
s+ste,2 Provided, #hat the penalt+ to be i,posed shall be %'& one de0ree hi0her than that
provided for in Republic Act No. 8))*.
t see,s that the above ,erel+ expands the scope of the Anti-Child Porno0raph+ Act of -((84'
%ACPA& to cover identical activities in c+berspace. n theor+, nothin0 prevents the 0overn,ent
fro, invo$in0 the ACPA /hen prosecutin0 persons /ho co,,it child porno0raph+ usin0 a
co,puter s+ste,. Actuall+, ACPA?s definition of child porno0raph+ alread+ e,braces the use of
Aelectronic, ,echanical, di0ital, optical, ,a0netic or an+ other ,eans.A Notabl+, no one has
6uestioned this ACPA provision.
"f course, the la/ ,a$es the penalt+ hi0her b+ one de0ree /hen the cri,e is co,,itted in
c+berspace. But no one can co,plain since the intensit+ or duration of penalt+ is a le0islative
prero0ative and there is rational basis for such hi0her penalt+.4- #he potential for uncontrolled
proliferation of a particular piece of child porno0raph+ /hen uploaded in the c+berspace is
incalculable.
Petitioners point out that the provision of ACPA that ,a$es it unla/ful for an+ person to
Aproduce, direct, ,anufacture or create an+ for, of child porno0raph+A44 clearl+ relates to the
prosecution of persons /ho aid and abet the core offenses that ACPA see$s to punish.45
Petitioners are /ar+ that a person /ho ,erel+ doodles on paper and i,a0ines a sexual abuse of a
':-+ear-old is not cri,inall+ liable for producin0 child porno0raph+ but one /ho for,ulates the
idea on his laptop /ould be. .urther, if the author bounces off his ideas on #/itter, an+one /ho
replies to the t/eet could be considered aidin0 and abettin0 a c+bercri,e.
#he 6uestion of aidin0 and abettin0 the offense b+ si,pl+ co,,entin0 on it /ill be discussed
else/here belo/. .or no/ the Court ,ust hold that the constitutionalit+ of !ection 5%c&%-& is not
successfull+ challen0ed.
!ection 5%c&%4& of the C+bercri,e ;a/
!ection 5%c&%4& provides2
!ec. 5. C+bercri,e "ffenses. @ #he follo/in0 acts constitute the offense of c+bercri,e
punishable under this Act2
x x x x
%c& Content-related "ffenses2
x x x x
%4& 1nsolicited Co,,ercial Co,,unications. @ #he trans,ission of co,,ercial electronic
co,,unication /ith the use of co,puter s+ste, /hich see$s to advertise, sell, or offer for sale
products and services are prohibited unless2
%i& #here is prior affir,ative consent fro, the recipient3 or
%ii& #he pri,ar+ intent of the co,,unication is for service andFor ad,inistrative
announce,ents fro, the sender to its existin0 users, subscribers or custo,ers3 or
%iii& #he follo/in0 conditions are present2
%aa& #he co,,ercial electronic co,,unication contains a si,ple, valid, and
reliable /a+ for the recipient to re7ect receipt of further co,,ercial electronic
,essa0es %opt-out& fro, the sa,e source3
%bb& #he co,,ercial electronic co,,unication does not purposel+ dis0uise the
source of the electronic ,essa0e3 and
%cc& #he co,,ercial electronic co,,unication does not purposel+ include
,isleadin0 infor,ation in an+ part of the ,essa0e in order to induce the
recipients to read the ,essa0e.
#he above penali9es the trans,ission of unsolicited co,,ercial co,,unications, also $no/n as
Aspa,.A #he ter, Aspa,A surfaced in earl+ internet chat roo,s and interactive fantas+ 0a,es.
"ne /ho repeats the sa,e sentence or co,,ent /as said to be ,a$in0 a Aspa,.A #he ter,
referred to a Mont+ P+thon?s .l+in0 Circus scene in /hich actors /ould $eep sa+in0 A!pa,,
!pa,, !pa,, and !pa,A /hen readin0 options fro, a ,enu.4*
#he Bovern,ent, represented b+ the !olicitor Beneral, points out that unsolicited co,,ercial
co,,unications or spa,s are a nuisance that /astes the stora0e and net/or$ capacities of
internet service providers, reduces the efficienc+ of co,,erce and technolo0+, and interferes
/ith the o/ner?s peaceful en7o+,ent of his propert+. #rans,ittin0 spa,s a,ounts to trespass to
one?s privac+ since the person sendin0 out spa,s enters the recipient?s do,ain /ithout prior
per,ission. #he "!B contends that co,,ercial speech en7o+s less protection in la/.
But, firstl+, the 0overn,ent presents no basis for holdin0 that unsolicited electronic ads reduce
the Aefficienc+ of co,puters.A !econdl+, people, before the arrival of the a0e of co,puters, have
alread+ been receivin0 such unsolicited ads b+ ,ail. #hese have never been outla/ed as nuisance
since people ,i0ht have interest in such ads. Dhat ,atters is that the recipient has the option of
not openin0 or readin0 these ,ail ads. #hat is true /ith spa,s. #heir recipients al/a+s have the
option to delete or not to read the,.
#o prohibit the trans,ission of unsolicited ads /ould den+ a person the ri0ht to read his e,ails,
even unsolicited co,,ercial ads addressed to hi,. Co,,ercial speech is a separate cate0or+ of
speech /hich is not accorded the sa,e level of protection as that 0iven to other constitutionall+
0uaranteed for,s of expression but is nonetheless entitled to protection.4: #he !tate cannot rob
hi, of this ri0ht /ithout violatin0 the constitutionall+ 0uaranteed freedo, of expression.
1nsolicited advertise,ents are le0iti,ate for,s of expression.
Articles 4*4, 4*5, and 4** of the Penal Code
!ection 5%c&%5& of the C+ber Cri,e ;a/
Petitioners dispute the constitutionalit+ of both the penal code provisions on libel as /ell as
!ection 5%c&%5& of the C+bercri,e Prevention Act on c+berlibel.
#he RPC provisions on libel read2
Art. 4*4. Definition of libel. E A libel is public and ,alicious i,putation of a cri,e, or of a vice
or defect, real or i,a0inar+, or an+ act, o,ission, condition, status, or circu,stance tendin0 to
cause the dishonor, discredit, or conte,pt of a natural or 7uridical person, or to blac$en the
,e,or+ of one /ho is dead.
Art. 4*5. Re6uire,ent for publicit+. E Ever+ defa,ator+ i,putation is presu,ed to be
,alicious, even if it be true, if no 0ood intention and 7ustifiable ,otive for ,a$in0 it is sho/n,
except in the follo/in0 cases2
'. A private co,,unication ,ade b+ an+ person to another in the perfor,ance of an+
le0al, ,oral or social dut+3 and
-. A fair and true report, ,ade in 0ood faith, /ithout an+ co,,ents or re,ar$s, of an+
7udicial, le0islative or other official proceedin0s /hich are not of confidential nature, or
of an+ state,ent, report or speech delivered in said proceedin0s, or of an+ other act
perfor,ed b+ public officers in the exercise of their functions.
Art. 4**. ;ibel ,eans b+ /ritin0s or si,ilar ,eans. E A libel co,,itted b+ ,eans of /ritin0,
printin0, litho0raph+, en0ravin0, radio, phono0raph, paintin0, theatrical exhibition,
cine,ato0raphic exhibition, or an+ si,ilar ,eans, shall be punished b+ prision correccional in its
,ini,u, and ,ediu, periods or a fine ran0in0 fro, -(( to :,((( pesos, or both, in addition to
the civil action /hich ,a+ be brou0ht b+ the offended part+.
#he libel provision of the c+bercri,e la/, on the other hand, ,erel+ incorporates to for, part of
it the provisions of the RPC on libel. #hus !ection 5%c&%5& reads2
!ec. 5. C+bercri,e "ffenses. E #he follo/in0 acts constitute the offense of c+bercri,e
punishable under this Act2
x x x x
%c& Content-related "ffenses2
x x x x
%5& ;ibel. E #he unla/ful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 4** of the Revised
Penal Code, as a,ended, co,,itted throu0h a co,puter s+ste, or an+ other si,ilar ,eans
/hich ,a+ be devised in the future.
Petitioners la,ent that libel provisions of the penal code4) and, in effect, the libel provisions of
the c+bercri,e la/ carr+ /ith the, the re6uire,ent of Apresu,ed ,aliceA even /hen the latest
7urisprudence alread+ replaces it /ith the hi0her standard of Aactual ,aliceA as a basis for
conviction.4= Petitioners ar0ue that inferrin0 Apresu,ed ,aliceA fro, the accused?s defa,ator+
state,ent b+ virtue of Article 4*5 of the penal code infrin0es on his constitutionall+ 0uaranteed
freedo, of expression.
Petitioners /ould 0o further. #he+ contend that the la/s on libel should be stric$en do/n as
unconstitutional for other/ise 0ood 7urisprudence re6uirin0 Aactual ,aliceA could easil+ be
overturned as the Court has done in .er,in v. People48 even /here the offended parties
happened to be public fi0ures.
#he ele,ents of libel are2 %a& the alle0ation of a discreditable act or condition concernin0
another3 %b& publication of the char0e3 %c& identit+ of the person defa,ed3 and %d& existence of
,alice.5(
#here is Aactual ,aliceA or ,alice in fact5' /hen the offender ,a$es the defa,ator+ state,ent
/ith the $no/led0e that it is false or /ith rec$less disre0ard of /hether it /as false or not.5- #he
rec$less disre0ard standard used here re6uires a hi0h de0ree of a/areness of probable falsit+.
#here ,ust be sufficient evidence to per,it the conclusion that the accused in fact entertained
serious doubts as to the truth of the state,ent he published. Bross or even extre,e ne0li0ence is
not sufficient to establish actual ,alice.54
#he prosecution bears the burden of provin0 the presence of actual ,alice in instances /here
such ele,ent is re6uired to establish 0uilt. #he defense of absence of actual ,alice, even /hen
the state,ent turns out to be false, is available /here the offended part+ is a public official or a
public fi0ure, as in the cases of Gas6ue9 %a baran0a+ official& and Bor7al %the Executive Director,
.irst National Conference on ;and #ransportation&. !ince the penal code and i,plicitl+, the
c+bercri,e la/, ,ainl+ tar0et libel a0ainst private persons, the Court reco0ni9es that these la/s
i,pl+ a stricter standard of A,aliceA to convict the author of a defa,ator+ state,ent /here the
offended part+ is a public fi0ure. !ociet+?s interest and the ,aintenance of 0ood 0overn,ent
de,and a full discussion of public affairs.55
Parentheticall+, the Court cannot accept the proposition that its rulin0 in .er,in disre0arded the
hi0her standard of actual ,alice or ,alice in fact /hen it found Cristinelli .er,in 0uilt+ of
co,,ittin0 libel a0ainst co,plainants /ho /ere public fi0ures. Actuall+, the Court found the
presence of ,alice in fact in that case. #hus2
t can be 0leaned fro, her testi,on+ that petitioner had the ,otive to ,a$e defa,ator+
i,putations a0ainst co,plainants. #hus, petitioner cannot, b+ si,pl+ ,a$in0 a 0eneral denial,
convince us that there /as no ,alice on her part. Geril+, not onl+ /as there ,alice in la/, the
article bein0 ,alicious in itself, but there /as also ,alice in fact, as there /as ,otive to tal$ ill
a0ainst co,plainants durin0 the electoral ca,pai0n. %E,phasis ours&
ndeed, the Court too$ into account the relativel+ /ide lee/a+ 0iven to utterances a0ainst public
fi0ures in the above case, cine,a and television personalities, /hen it ,odified the penalt+ of
i,prison,ent to 7ust a fine of P:,(((.((.
But, /here the offended part+ is a private individual, the prosecution need not prove the presence
of ,alice. #he la/ explicitl+ presu,es its existence %,alice in la/& fro, the defa,ator+
character of the assailed state,ent.5* .or his defense, the accused ,ust sho/ that he has a
7ustifiable reason for the defa,ator+ state,ent even if it /as in fact true.5:
Petitioners peddle the vie/ that both the penal code and the C+bercri,e Prevention Act violate
the countr+?s obli0ations under the nternational Covenant of Civil and Political Ri0hts %CCPR&.
#he+ point out that in Adonis v. Republic of the Philippines,5) the 1nited Nations <u,an Ri0hts
Co,,ittee %1N<RC& cited its Beneral Co,,ent 45 to the effect that penal defa,ation la/s
should include the defense of truth.
But Beneral Co,,ent 45 does not sa+ that the truth of the defa,ator+ state,ent should
constitute an all-enco,passin0 defense. As it happens, Article 4:' reco0ni9es truth as a defense
but under the condition that the accused has been pro,pted in ,a$in0 the state,ent b+ 0ood
,otives and for 7ustifiable ends. #hus2
Art. 4:'. Proof of the truth. E n ever+ cri,inal prosecution for libel, the truth ,a+ be 0iven in
evidence to the court and if it appears that the ,atter char0ed as libelous is true, and, ,oreover,
that it /as published /ith 0ood ,otives and for 7ustifiable ends, the defendants shall be
ac6uitted.
Proof of the truth of an i,putation of an act or o,ission not constitutin0 a cri,e shall not be
ad,itted, unless the i,putation shall have been ,ade a0ainst Bovern,ent e,plo+ees /ith
respect to facts related to the dischar0e of their official duties.
n such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the i,putation ,ade b+ hi,, he shall be
ac6uitted.
Besides, the 1N<RC did not actuall+ en7oin the Philippines, as petitioners ur0e, to decri,inali9e
libel. t si,pl+ su00ested that defa,ation la/s be crafted /ith care to ensure that the+ do not
stifle freedo, of expression.5= ndeed, the CCPR states that althou0h ever+one should en7o+
freedo, of expression, its exercise carries /ith it special duties and responsibilities. .ree speech
is not absolute. t is sub7ect to certain restrictions, as ,a+ be necessar+ and as ,a+ be provided
b+ la/.58
#he Court a0rees /ith the !olicitor Beneral that libel is not a constitutionall+ protected speech
and that the 0overn,ent has an obli0ation to protect private individuals fro, defa,ation. ndeed,
c+berlibel is actuall+ not a ne/ cri,e since Article 4*4, in relation to Article 4** of the penal
code, alread+ punishes it. n effect, !ection 5%c&%5& above ,erel+ affir,s that online defa,ation
constitutes Asi,ilar ,eansA for co,,ittin0 libel.
But the Court?s ac6uiescence 0oes onl+ insofar as the c+bercri,e la/ penali9es the author of the
libelous state,ent or article. C+berlibel brin0s /ith it certain intricacies, unheard of /hen the
penal code provisions on libel /ere enacted. #he culture associated /ith internet ,edia is
distinct fro, that of print.
#he internet is characteri9ed as encoura0in0 a free/heelin0, an+thin0-0oes /ritin0 st+le.*( n a
sense, the+ are a /orld apart in ter,s of 6uic$ness of the reader?s reaction to defa,ator+
state,ents posted in c+berspace, facilitated b+ one-clic$ repl+ options offered b+ the net/or$in0
site as /ell as b+ the speed /ith /hich such reactions are disse,inated do/n the line to other
internet users. Dhether these reactions to defa,ator+ state,ent posted on the internet constitute
aidin0 and abettin0 libel, acts that !ection * of the c+bercri,e la/ punishes, is another ,atter
that the Court /ill deal /ith next in relation to !ection * of the la/.
!ection * of the C+bercri,e ;a/
!ection * provides2
!ec. *. "ther "ffenses. E #he follo/in0 acts shall also constitute an offense2
%a& Aidin0 or Abettin0 in the Co,,ission of C+bercri,e. @ An+ person /ho /illfull+
abets or aids in the co,,ission of an+ of the offenses enu,erated in this Act shall be
held liable.
%b& Atte,pt in the Co,,ission of C+bercri,e. E An+ person /ho /illfull+ atte,pts to
co,,it an+ of the offenses enu,erated in this Act shall be held liable.
Petitioners assail the constitutionalit+ of !ection * that renders cri,inall+ liable an+ person /ho
/illfull+ abets or aids in the co,,ission or atte,pts to co,,it an+ of the offenses enu,erated
as c+bercri,es. t suffers fro, overbreadth, creatin0 a chillin0 and deterrent effect on protected
expression.
#he !olicitor Beneral contends, ho/ever, that the current bod+ of 7urisprudence and la/s on
aidin0 and abettin0 sufficientl+ protects the freedo, of expression of Aneti9ens,A the ,ultitude
that avail the,selves of the services of the internet. <e points out that existin0 la/s and
7urisprudence sufficientl+ delineate the ,eanin0 of Aaidin0 or abettin0A a cri,e as to protect the
innocent. #he !olicitor Beneral ar0ues that plain, ordinar+, and co,,on usa0e is at ti,es
sufficient to 0uide la/ enforce,ent a0encies in enforcin0 the la/.*' #he le0islature is not
re6uired to define ever+ sin0le /ord contained in the la/s the+ craft.
Aidin0 or abettin0 has of course /ell-defined ,eanin0 and application in existin0 la/s. Dhen a
person aids or abets another in destro+in0 a forest,*- s,u00lin0 ,erchandise into the countr+,*4
or interferin0 in the peaceful pic$etin0 of laborers,*5 his action is essentiall+ ph+sical and so is
susceptible to eas+ assess,ent as cri,inal in character. #hese for,s of aidin0 or abettin0 lend
the,selves to the tests of co,,on sense and hu,an experience.
But, /hen it co,es to certain c+bercri,es, the /aters are ,uddier and the line of si0ht is
so,e/hat blurred. #he idea of Aaidin0 or abettin0A /ron0doin0s online threatens the heretofore
popular and unchallen0ed do0,as of c+berspace use.
Accordin0 to the -('' !outheast Asia Di0ital Consu,er Report, 44H of .ilipinos have accessed
the internet /ithin a +ear, translatin0 to about 4' ,illion users.** Based on a recent surve+, the
Philippines ran$s :th in the top '( ,ost en0a0ed countries for social net/or$in0.*: !ocial
net/or$in0 sites build social relations a,on0 people /ho, for exa,ple, share interests, activities,
bac$0rounds, or real-life connections.*)
#/o of the ,ost popular of these sites are .aceboo$ and #/itter. As of late -('-, '.- billion
people /ith shared interests use .aceboo$ to 0et in touch.*= 1sers re0ister at this site, create a
personal profile or an open boo$ of /ho the+ are, add other users as friends, and exchan0e
,essa0es, includin0 auto,atic notifications /hen the+ update their profile.*8 A user can post a
state,ent, a photo, or a video on .aceboo$, /hich can be ,ade visible to an+one, dependin0 on
the user?s privac+ settin0s.
f the post is ,ade available to the public, ,eanin0 to ever+one and not onl+ to his friends,
an+one on .aceboo$ can react to the postin0, clic$in0 an+ of several buttons of preferences on
the pro0ra,?s screen such as A;i$e,A ACo,,ent,A or A!hare.A A;i$eA si0nifies that the reader
li$es the postin0 /hile ACo,,entA enables hi, to post online his feelin0s or vie/s about the
sa,e, such as A#his is 0reatIA Dhen a .aceboo$ user A!haresA a postin0, the ori0inal Apostin0A
/ill appear on his o/n .aceboo$ profile, conse6uentl+ ,a$in0 it visible to his do/n-line
.aceboo$ .riends.
#/itter, on the other hand, is an internet social net/or$in0 and ,icroblo00in0 service that
enables its users to send and read short text-based ,essa0es of up to '5( characters. #hese are
$no/n as A#/eets.A Microblo00in0 is the practice of postin0 s,all pieces of di0ital contentE
/hich could be in the for, of text, pictures, lin$s, short videos, or other ,ediaEon the internet.
nstead of friends, a #/itter user has A.ollo/ers,A those /ho subscribe to this particular user?s
posts, enablin0 the, to read the sa,e, and A.ollo/in0,A those /ho, this particular user is
subscribed to, enablin0 hi, to read their posts. ;i$e .aceboo$, a #/itter user can ,a$e his
t/eets available onl+ to his .ollo/ers, or to the 0eneral public. f a post is available to the public,
an+ #/itter user can ARet/eetA a 0iven postin0. Ret/eetin0 is 7ust repostin0 or republishin0
another person?s t/eet /ithout the need of cop+in0 and pastin0 it.
n the c+ber/orld, there are ,an+ actors2 a& the blo00er /ho ori0inates the assailed state,ent3 b&
the blo0 service provider li$e Jahoo3 c& the internet service provider li$e P;D#, !,art, Blobe, or
!un3 d& the internet cafK that ,a+ have provided the co,puter used for postin0 the blo03 e& the
person /ho ,a$es a favorable co,,ent on the blo03 and f& the person /ho posts a lin$ to the
blo0 site.:( No/, suppose Maria %a blo00er& ,aintains a blo0 on DordPress.co, %blo0 service
provider&. !he needs the internet to access her blo0 so she subscribes to !un Broadband %nternet
!ervice Provider&.
"ne da+, Maria posts on her internet account the state,ent that a certain ,arried public official
has an illicit affair /ith a ,ovie star. ;inda, one of Maria?s friends /ho sees this post, co,,ents
online, AJes, this is so trueI #he+ are so i,,oral.A Maria?s ori0inal post is then ,ultiplied b+ her
friends and the latter?s friends, and do/n the line to friends of friends al,ost ad infinitu,. Nena,
/ho is a stran0er to both Maria and ;inda, co,es across this blo0, finds it interestin0 and so
shares the lin$ to this apparentl+ defa,ator+ blo0 on her #/itter account. Nena?s A.ollo/ersA
then ARet/eetA the lin$ to that blo0 site.
Pa,ela, a #/itter user, stu,bles upon a rando, person?s ARet/eetA of Nena?s ori0inal t/eet and
posts this on her .aceboo$ account. ,,ediatel+, Pa,ela?s .aceboo$ .riends start ;i$in0 and
,a$in0 Co,,ents on the assailed postin0. A lot of the, even press the !hare button, resultin0 in
the further spread of the ori0inal postin0 into tens, hundreds, thousands, and 0reater postin0s.
#he 6uestion is2 are online postin0s such as A;i$in0A an openl+ defa,ator+ state,ent,
ACo,,entin0A on it, or A!harin0A it /ith others, to be re0arded as Aaidin0 or abettin0LA n libel
in the ph+sical /orld, if Nestor places on the office bulletin board a s,all poster that sa+s,
AAr,and is a thiefI,A he could certainl+ be char0ed /ith libel. f Ro0er, seein0 the poster, /rites
on it, A li$e thisI,A that could not be libel since he did not author the poster. f Arthur, passin0 b+
and noticin0 the poster, /rites on it, ACorrectI,A /ould that be libelL No, for he ,erel+ expresses
a0ree,ent /ith the state,ent on the poster. <e still is not its author. Besides, it is not clear if
aidin0 or abettin0 libel in the ph+sical /orld is a cri,e.
But suppose Nestor posts the blo0, AAr,and is a thiefIA on a social net/or$in0 site. Dould a
reader and his .riends or .ollo/ers, availin0 the,selves of an+ of the A;i$e,A ACo,,ent,A and
A!hareA reactions, be 0uilt+ of aidin0 or abettin0 libelL And, in the co,plex /orld of c+berspace
expressions of thou0hts, /hen /ill one be liable for aidin0 or abettin0 c+bercri,esL Dhere is the
venue of the cri,eL
Except for the ori0inal author of the assailed state,ent, the rest %those /ho pressed ;i$e,
Co,,ent and !hare& are essentiall+ $nee-7er$ senti,ents of readers /ho ,a+ thin$ little or
hapha9ardl+ of their response to the ori0inal postin0. Dill the+ be liable for aidin0 or abettin0L
And, considerin0 the inherent i,possibilit+ of 7oinin0 hundreds or thousands of respondin0
A.riendsA or A.ollo/ersA in the cri,inal char0e to be filed in court, /ho /ill ,a$e a choice as to
/ho should 0o to 7ail for the outbrea$ of the challen0ed postin0L
#he old para,eters for enforcin0 the traditional for, of libel /ould be a s6uare pe0 in a round
hole /hen applied to c+berspace libel. 1nless the le0islature crafts a c+ber libel la/ that ta$es
into account its uni6ue circu,stances and culture, such la/ /ill tend to create a chillin0 effect on
the ,illions that use this ne/ ,ediu, of co,,unication in violation of their constitutionall+-
0uaranteed ri0ht to freedo, of expression.
#he 1nited !tates !upre,e Court faced the sa,e issue in Reno v. A,erican Civil ;iberties
1nion,:' a case involvin0 the constitutionalit+ of the Co,,unications Decenc+ Act of '88:.
#he la/ prohibited %'& the $no/in0 trans,ission, b+ ,eans of a teleco,,unications device, of
Aobscene or indecentA co,,unications to an+ recipient under '= +ears of a0e3 and %-& the
$no/in0 use of an interactive co,puter service to send to a specific person or persons under '=
+ears of a0e or to displa+ in a ,anner available to a person under '= +ears of a0e
co,,unications that, in context, depict or describe, in ter,s Apatentl+ offensiveA as ,easured b+
conte,porar+ co,,unit+ standards, sexual or excretor+ activities or or0ans.
#hose /ho challen0ed the Act clai, that the la/ violated the .irst A,end,ent?s 0uarantee of
freedo, of speech for bein0 overbroad. #he 1.!. !upre,e Court a0reed and ruled2
#he va0ueness of the Co,,unications Decenc+ Act of '88: %CDA&, 5) 1.!.C.!. M--4, is a
,atter of special concern for t/o reasons. .irst, the CDA is a content-based re0ulation of speech.
#he va0ueness of such a re0ulation raises special 1.!. Const. a,end. concerns because of its
obvious chillin0 effect on free speech. !econd, the CDA is a cri,inal statute. n addition to the
opprobriu, and sti0,a of a cri,inal conviction, the CDA threatens violators /ith penalties
includin0 up to t/o +ears in prison for each act of violation. #he severit+ of cri,inal sanctions
,a+ /ell cause spea$ers to re,ain silent rather than co,,unicate even ar0uabl+ unla/ful
/ords, ideas, and i,a0es. As a practical ,atter, this increased deterrent effect, coupled /ith the
ris$ of discri,inator+ enforce,ent of va0ue re0ulations, poses 0reater 1.!. Const. a,end.
concerns than those i,plicated b+ certain civil re0ulations.
x x x x
#he Co,,unications Decenc+ Act of '88: %CDA&, 5) 1.!.C.!. M --4, presents a 0reat threat of
censorin0 speech that, in fact, falls outside the statuteNs scope. Biven the va0ue contours of the
covera0e of the statute, it un6uestionabl+ silences so,e spea$ers /hose ,essa0es /ould be
entitled to constitutional protection. #hat dan0er provides further reason for insistin0 that the
statute not be overl+ broad. #he CDA?s burden on protected speech cannot be 7ustified if it could
be avoided b+ a ,ore carefull+ drafted statute. %E,phasis ours&
;ibel in the c+berspace can of course stain a person?s i,a0e /ith 7ust one clic$ of the ,ouse.
!currilous state,ents can spread and travel fast across the 0lobe li$e bad ne/s. Moreover,
c+berlibel often 0oes hand in hand /ith c+berbull+in0 that oppresses the victi,, his relatives,
and friends, evo$in0 fro, ,ild to disastrous reactions. !till, a 0overn,ental purpose, /hich
see$s to re0ulate the use of this c+berspace co,,unication technolo0+ to protect a person?s
reputation and peace of ,ind, cannot adopt ,eans that /ill unnecessaril+ and broadl+ s/eep,
invadin0 the area of protected freedo,s.:-
f such ,eans are adopted, self-inhibition borne of fear of /hat sinister predica,ents a/ait
internet users /ill suppress other/ise robust discussion of public issues. De,ocrac+ /ill be
threatened and /ith it, all liberties. Penal la/s should provide reasonabl+ clear 0uidelines for la/
enforce,ent officials and triers of facts to prevent arbitrar+ and discri,inator+ enforce,ent.:4
#he ter,s Aaidin0 or abettin0A constitute broad s/eep that 0enerates chillin0 effect on those /ho
express the,selves throu0h c+berspace posts, co,,ents, and other ,essa0es.:5 <ence, !ection
* of the c+bercri,e la/ that punishes Aaidin0 or abettin0A libel on the c+berspace is a nullit+.
Dhen a penal statute encroaches upon the freedo, of speech, a facial challen0e 0rounded on the
void-for-va0ueness doctrine is acceptable. #he inapplicabilit+ of the doctrine ,ust be carefull+
delineated. As >ustice Antonio #. Carpio explained in his dissent in Ro,ualde9 v. Co,,ission
on Elections,:* A/e ,ust vie/ these state,ents of the Court on the inapplicabilit+ of the
overbreadth and va0ueness doctrines to penal statutes as appropriate onl+ insofar as these
doctrines are used to ,ount Ofacial? challen0es to penal statutes not involvin0 free speech.A
n an Aas appliedA challen0e, the petitioner /ho clai,s a violation of his constitutional ri0ht can
raise an+ constitutional 0round @ absence of due process, lac$ of fair notice, lac$ of ascertainable
standards, overbreadth, or va0ueness. <ere, one can challen0e the constitutionalit+ of a statute
onl+ if he asserts a violation of his o/n ri0hts. t prohibits one fro, assailin0 the
constitutionalit+ of the statute based solel+ on the violation of the ri0hts of third persons not
before the court. #his rule is also $no/n as the prohibition a0ainst third-part+ standin0.::
But this rule ad,its of exceptions. A petitioner ,a+ for instance ,ount a AfacialA challen0e to the
constitutionalit+ of a statute even if he clai,s no violation of his o/n ri0hts under the assailed
statute /here it involves free speech on 0rounds of overbreadth or va0ueness of the statute.
#he rationale for this exception is to counter the Achillin0 effectA on protected speech that co,es
fro, statutes violatin0 free speech. A person /ho does not $no/ /hether his speech constitutes a
cri,e under an overbroad or va0ue la/ ,a+ si,pl+ restrain hi,self fro, spea$in0 in order to
avoid bein0 char0ed of a cri,e. #he overbroad or va0ue la/ thus chills hi, into silence.:)
As alread+ stated, the c+berspace is an inco,parable, pervasive ,ediu, of co,,unication. t is
inevitable that an+ 0overn,ent threat of punish,ent re0ardin0 certain uses of the ,ediu,
creates a chillin0 effect on the constitutionall+-protected freedo, of expression of the 0reat
,asses that use it. n this case, the particularl+ co,plex /eb of interaction on social ,edia
/ebsites /ould 0ive la/ enforcers such latitude that the+ could arbitraril+ or selectivel+ enforce
the la/.
Dho is to decide /hen to prosecute persons /ho boost the visibilit+ of a postin0 on the internet
b+ li$in0 itL Neti9ens are not 0iven Afair noticeA or /arnin0 as to /hat is cri,inal conduct and
/hat is la/ful conduct. Dhen a case is filed, ho/ /ill the court ascertain /hether or not one
neti9en?s co,,ent aided and abetted a c+bercri,e /hile another co,,ent did notL
"f course, if the ACo,,entA does not ,erel+ react to the ori0inal postin0 but creates an
alto0ether ne/ defa,ator+ stor+ a0ainst Ar,and li$e A<e beats his /ife and children,A then that
should be considered an ori0inal postin0 published on the internet. Both the penal code and the
c+bercri,e la/ clearl+ punish authors of defa,ator+ publications. Ma$e no ,ista$e, libel
destro+s reputations that societ+ values. Allo/ed to cascade in the internet, it /ill destro+
relationships and, under certain circu,stances, /ill 0enerate en,it+ and tension bet/een social
or econo,ic 0roups, races, or reli0ions, exacerbatin0 existin0 tension in their relationships.
n re0ard to the cri,e that tar0ets child porno0raph+, /hen ABoo0le procures, stores, and indexes
child porno0raph+ and facilitates the co,pletion of transactions involvin0 the disse,ination of
child porno0raph+,A does this ,a$e Boo0le and its users aiders and abettors in the co,,ission of
child porno0raph+ cri,esL:= B+ars hi0hli0hts a feature in the A,erican la/ on child
porno0raph+ that the C+bercri,es la/ lac$sEthe exe,ption of a provider or notabl+ a plain user
of interactive co,puter service fro, civil liabilit+ for child porno0raph+ as follo/s2
No provider or user of an interactive co,puter service shall be treated as the publisher or spea$er
of an+ infor,ation provided b+ another infor,ation content provider and cannot be held civill+
liable for an+ action voluntaril+ ta$en in 0ood faith to restrict access to or availabilit+ of ,aterial
that the provider or user considers to be obscene.../hether or not such ,aterial is constitutionall+
protected.:8
Dhen a person replies to a #/eet containin0 child porno0raph+, he effectivel+ republishes it
/hether /ittin0l+ or un/ittin0l+. Does this ,a$e hi, a /illin0 acco,plice to the distribution of
child porno0raph+L Dhen a user do/nloads the .aceboo$ ,obile application, the user ,a+ 0ive
consent to .aceboo$ to access his contact details. n this /a+, certain infor,ation is for/arded to
third parties and unsolicited co,,ercial co,,unication could be disse,inated on the basis of
this infor,ation.)( As the source of this infor,ation, is the user aidin0 the distribution of this
co,,unicationL #he le0islature needs to address this clearl+ to relieve users of anno+in0 fear of
possible cri,inal prosecution.
!ection * /ith respect to !ection 5%c&%5& is unconstitutional. ts va0ueness raises apprehension on
the part of internet users because of its obvious chillin0 effect on the freedo, of expression,
especiall+ since the cri,e of aidin0 or abettin0 ensnares all the actors in the c+berspace front in a
fu99+ /a+. Dhat is ,ore, as the petitioners point out, for,al cri,es such as libel are not
punishable unless consu,,ated.)' n the absence of le0islation tracin0 the interaction of
neti9ens and their level of responsibilit+ such as in other countries, !ection *, in relation to
!ection 5%c&%5& on ;ibel, !ection 5%c&%4& on 1nsolicited Co,,ercial Co,,unications, and
!ection 5%c&%-& on Child Porno0raph+, cannot stand scrutin+.
But the cri,e of aidin0 or abettin0 the co,,ission of c+bercri,es under !ection * should be
per,itted to appl+ to !ection 5%a&%'& on lle0al Access, !ection 5%a&%-& on lle0al nterception,
!ection 5%a&%4& on Data nterference, !ection 5%a&%5& on !+ste, nterference, !ection 5%a&%*& on
Misuse of Devices, !ection 5%a&%:& on C+ber-s6uattin0, !ection 5%b&%'& on Co,puter-related
.or0er+, !ection 5%b&%-& on Co,puter-related .raud, !ection 5%b&%4& on Co,puter-related
dentit+ #heft, and !ection 5%c&%'& on C+bersex. None of these offenses borders on the exercise
of the freedo, of expression.
#he cri,e of /illfull+ atte,ptin0 to co,,it an+ of these offenses is for the sa,e reason not
ob7ectionable. A hac$er ,a+ for instance have done all that is necessar+ to ille0all+ access
another part+?s co,puter s+ste, but the securit+ e,plo+ed b+ the s+ste,?s la/ful o/ner could
frustrate his effort. Another hac$er ,a+ have 0ained access to userna,es and pass/ords of
others but fail to use these because the s+ste, supervisor is alerted.)- f !ection * that punishes
an+ person /ho /illfull+ atte,pts to co,,it this specific offense is not upheld, the o/ner of the
userna,e and pass/ord could not file a co,plaint a0ainst hi, for atte,pted hac$in0. But this is
not ri0ht. #he hac$er should not be freed fro, liabilit+ si,pl+ because of the vi0ilance of a
la/ful o/ner or his supervisor.
Petitioners of course clai, that !ection * lac$s positive li,its and could cover the innocent.)4
Dhile this ,a+ be true /ith respect to c+bercri,es that tend to snea$ past the area of free
expression, an+ atte,pt to co,,it the other acts specified in !ection 5%a&%'&, !ection 5%a&%-&,
!ection 5%a&%4&, !ection 5%a&%5&, !ection 5%a&%*&, !ection 5%a&%:&, !ection 5%b&%'&, !ection 5%b&
%-&, !ection 5%b&%4&, and !ection 5%c&%'& as /ell as the actors aidin0 and abettin0 the co,,ission
of such acts can be identified /ith so,e reasonable certaint+ throu0h adroit trac$in0 of their
/or$s. Absent concrete proof of the sa,e, the innocent /ill of course be spared.
!ection : of the C+bercri,e ;a/
!ection : provides2
!ec. :. All cri,es defined and penali9ed b+ the Revised Penal Code, as a,ended, and special
la/s, if co,,itted b+, throu0h and /ith the use of infor,ation and co,,unications technolo0ies
shall be covered b+ the relevant provisions of this Act2 Provided, #hat the penalt+ to be i,posed
shall be one %'& de0ree hi0her than that provided for b+ the Revised Penal Code, as a,ended,
and special la/s, as the case ,a+ be.
!ection : ,erel+ ,a$es co,,ission of existin0 cri,es throu0h the internet a 6ualif+in0
circu,stance. As the !olicitor Beneral points out, there exists a substantial distinction bet/een
cri,es co,,itted throu0h the use of infor,ation and co,,unications technolo0+ and si,ilar
cri,es co,,itted usin0 other ,eans. n usin0 the technolo0+ in 6uestion, the offender often
evades identification and is able to reach far ,ore victi,s or cause 0reater har,. #he distinction,
therefore, creates a basis for hi0her penalties for c+bercri,es.
!ection ) of the C+bercri,e ;a/
!ection ) provides2
!ec. ). ;iabilit+ under "ther ;a/s. E A prosecution under this Act shall be /ithout pre7udice to
an+ liabilit+ for violation of an+ provision of the Revised Penal Code, as a,ended, or special
la/s.
#he !olicitor Beneral points out that !ection ) ,erel+ expresses the settled doctrine that a sin0le
set of acts ,a+ be prosecuted and penali9ed si,ultaneousl+ under t/o la/s, a special la/ and
the Revised Penal Code. Dhen t/o different la/s define t/o cri,es, prior 7eopard+ as to one
does not bar prosecution of the other althou0h both offenses arise fro, the sa,e fact, if each
cri,e involves so,e i,portant act /hich is not an essential ele,ent of the other.)5 Dith the
exception of the cri,es of online libel and online child porno0raph+, the Court /ould rather
leave the deter,ination of the correct application of !ection ) to actual cases.
"nline libel is different. #here should be no 6uestion that if the published ,aterial on print, said
to be libelous, is a0ain posted online or vice versa, that identical ,aterial cannot be the sub7ect of
t/o separate libels. #he t/o offenses, one a violation of Article 4*4 of the Revised Penal Code
and the other a violation of !ection 5%c&%5& of R.A. '(')* involve essentiall+ the sa,e ele,ents
and are in fact one and the sa,e offense. ndeed, the "!B itself clai,s that online libel under
!ection 5%c&%5& is not a ne/ cri,e but is one alread+ punished under Article 4*4. !ection 5%c&%5&
,erel+ establishes the co,puter s+ste, as another ,eans of publication.)* Char0in0 the
offender under both la/s /ould be a blatant violation of the proscription a0ainst double
7eopard+.):
#he sa,e is true /ith child porno0raph+ co,,itted online. !ection 5%c&%-& ,erel+ expands the
ACPA?s scope so as to include identical activities in c+berspace. As previousl+ discussed,
ACPA?s definition of child porno0raph+ in fact alread+ covers the use of Aelectronic, ,echanical,
di0ital, optical, ,a0netic or an+ other ,eans.A #hus, char0in0 the offender under both !ection
5%c&%-& and ACPA /ould li$e/ise be tanta,ount to a violation of the constitutional prohibition
a0ainst double 7eopard+.
!ection = of the C+bercri,e ;a/
!ection = provides2
!ec. =. Penalties. E An+ person found 0uilt+ of an+ of the punishable acts enu,erated in
!ections 5%a& and 5%b& of this Act shall be punished /ith i,prison,ent of prision ,a+or or a fine
of at least #/o hundred thousand pesos %PhP-((,(((.((& up to a ,axi,u, a,ount
co,,ensurate to the da,a0e incurred or both.
An+ person found 0uilt+ of the punishable act under !ection 5%a&%*& shall be punished /ith
i,prison,ent of prision ,a+or or a fine of not ,ore than .ive hundred thousand pesos
%PhP*((,(((.((& or both.
f punishable acts in !ection 5%a& are co,,itted a0ainst critical infrastructure, the penalt+ of
reclusion te,poral or a fine of at least .ive hundred thousand pesos %PhP*((,(((.((& up to
,axi,u, a,ount co,,ensurate to the da,a0e incurred or both, shall be i,posed.
An+ person found 0uilt+ of an+ of the punishable acts enu,erated in !ection 5%c&%'& of this Act
shall be punished /ith i,prison,ent of prision ,a+or or a fine of at least #/o hundred thousand
pesos %PhP-((,(((.((& but not exceedin0 "ne ,illion pesos %PhP',(((,(((.((& or both.
An+ person found 0uilt+ of an+ of the punishable acts enu,erated in !ection 5%c&%-& of this Act
shall be punished /ith the penalties as enu,erated in Republic Act No. 8))* or the AAnti-Child
Porno0raph+ Act of -((82A Provided, #hat the penalt+ to be i,posed shall be one %'& de0ree
hi0her than that provided for in Republic Act No. 8))*, if co,,itted throu0h a co,puter s+ste,.
An+ person found 0uilt+ of an+ of the punishable acts enu,erated in !ection 5%c&%4& shall be
punished /ith i,prison,ent of arresto ,a+or or a fine of at least .ift+ thousand pesos
%PhP*(,(((.((& but not exceedin0 #/o hundred fift+ thousand pesos %PhP-*(,(((.((& or both.
An+ person found 0uilt+ of an+ of the punishable acts enu,erated in !ection * shall be punished
/ith i,prison,ent one %'& de0ree lo/er than that of the prescribed penalt+ for the offense or a
fine of at least "ne hundred thousand pesos %PhP'((,(((.((& but not exceedin0 .ive hundred
thousand pesos %PhP*((,(((.((& or both.
!ection = provides for the penalties for the follo/in0 cri,es2 !ections 5%a& on "ffenses A0ainst
the Confidentialit+, nte0rit+ and Availabilit+ of Co,puter Data and !+ste,s3 5%b& on Co,puter-
related "ffenses3 5%a&%*& on Misuse of Devices3 /hen the cri,e punishable under 5%a& is
co,,itted a0ainst critical infrastructure3 5%c&%'& on C+bersex3 5%c&%-& on Child Porno0raph+3
5%c&%4& on 1nsolicited Co,,ercial Co,,unications3 and !ection * on Aidin0 or Abettin0, and
Atte,pt in the Co,,ission of C+bercri,e.
#he ,atter of fixin0 penalties for the co,,ission of cri,es is as a rule a le0islative prero0ative.
<ere the le0islature prescribed a ,easure of severe penalties for /hat it re0ards as deleterious
c+bercri,es. #he+ appear proportionate to the evil sou0ht to be punished. #he po/er to
deter,ine penalties for offenses is not diluted or i,properl+ /ielded si,pl+ because at so,e
prior ti,e the act or o,ission /as but an ele,ent of another offense or ,i0ht 7ust have been
connected /ith another cri,e.)) >ud0es and ,a0istrates can onl+ interpret and appl+ the, and
have no authorit+ to ,odif+ or revise their ran0e as deter,ined b+ the le0islative depart,ent.
#he courts should not encroach on this prero0ative of the la/,a$in0 bod+.)=
!ection '- of the C+bercri,e ;a/
!ection '- provides2
!ec. '-. Real-#i,e Collection of #raffic Data. E ;a/ enforce,ent authorities, /ith due cause,
shall be authori9ed to collect or record b+ technical or electronic ,eans traffic data in real-ti,e
associated /ith specified co,,unications trans,itted b+ ,eans of a co,puter s+ste,.
#raffic data refer onl+ to the co,,unication?s ori0in, destination, route, ti,e, date, si9e,
duration, or t+pe of underl+in0 service, but not content, nor identities.
All other data to be collected or sei9ed or disclosed /ill re6uire a court /arrant.
!ervice providers are re6uired to cooperate and assist la/ enforce,ent authorities in the
collection or recordin0 of the above-stated infor,ation.
#he court /arrant re6uired under this section shall onl+ be issued or 0ranted upon /ritten
application and the exa,ination under oath or affir,ation of the applicant and the /itnesses he
,a+ produce and the sho/in02 %'& that there are reasonable 0rounds to believe that an+ of the
cri,es enu,erated hereinabove has been co,,itted, or is bein0 co,,itted, or is about to be
co,,itted3 %-& that there are reasonable 0rounds to believe that evidence that /ill be obtained is
essential to the conviction of an+ person for, or to the solution of, or to the prevention of, an+
such cri,es3 and %4& that there are no other ,eans readil+ available for obtainin0 such evidence.
Petitioners assail the 0rant to la/ enforce,ent a0encies of the po/er to collect or record traffic
data in real ti,e as tendin0 to curtail civil liberties or provide opportunities for official abuse.
#he+ clai, that data sho/in0 /here di0ital ,essa0es co,e fro,, /hat $ind the+ are, and /here
the+ are destined need not be incri,inatin0 to their senders or recipients before the+ are to be
protected. Petitioners invo$e the ri0ht of ever+ individual to privac+ and to be protected fro,
0overn,ent snoopin0 into the ,essa0es or infor,ation that the+ send to one another.
#he first 6uestion is /hether or not !ection '- has a proper 0overn,ental purpose since a la/
,a+ re6uire the disclosure of ,atters nor,all+ considered private but then onl+ upon sho/in0
that such re6uire,ent has a rational relation to the purpose of the la/,)8 that there is a
co,pellin0 !tate interest behind the la/, and that the provision itself is narro/l+ dra/n.=( n
assessin0 re0ulations affectin0 privac+ ri0hts, courts should balance the le0iti,ate concerns of
the !tate a0ainst constitutional 0uarantees.='
1ndoubtedl+, the !tate has a co,pellin0 interest in enactin0 the c+bercri,e la/ for there is a
need to put order to the tre,endous activities in c+berspace for public 0ood.=- #o do this, it is
/ithin the real, of reason that the 0overn,ent should be able to ,onitor traffic data to enhance
its abilit+ to co,bat all sorts of c+bercri,es.
Chapter G of the c+bercri,e la/, of /hich the collection or recordin0 of traffic data is a part,
ai,s to provide la/ enforce,ent authorities /ith the po/er the+ need for spottin0, preventin0,
and investi0atin0 cri,es co,,itted in c+berspace. Cri,e-fi0htin0 is a state business. ndeed, as
Chief >ustice !ereno points out, the Budapest Convention on C+bercri,es re6uires si0nator+
countries to adopt le0islative ,easures to e,po/er state authorities to collect or record Atraffic
data, in real ti,e, associated /ith specified co,,unications.A=4 And this is precisel+ /hat
!ection '- does. t e,po/ers la/ enforce,ent a0encies in this countr+ to collect or record such
data.
But is not evidence of +esterda+?s traffic data, li$e the scene of the cri,e after it has been
co,,itted, ade6uate for fi0htin0 c+bercri,es and, therefore, real-ti,e data is superfluous for
that purposeL Evidentl+, it is not. #hose /ho co,,it the cri,es of accessin0 a co,puter s+ste,
/ithout ri0ht,=5 trans,ittin0 viruses,=* lasciviousl+ exhibitin0 sexual or0ans or sexual activit+
for favor or consideration3=: and producin0 child porno0raph+=) could easil+ evade detection
and prosecution b+ si,pl+ ,ovin0 the ph+sical location of their co,puters or laptops fro, da+
to da+. n this di0ital a0e, the /ic$ed can co,,it c+bercri,es fro, virtuall+ an+/here2 fro,
internet cafKs, fro, $indred places that provide free internet services, and fro, unre0istered
,obile internet connectors. Cri,inals usin0 cellphones under pre-paid arran0e,ents and /ith
unre0istered !M cards do not have listed addresses and can neither be located nor identified.
#here are ,an+ /a+s the c+ber cri,inals can 6uic$l+ erase their trac$s. #hose /ho peddle child
porno0raph+ could use rela+s of co,puters to ,islead la/ enforce,ent authorities re0ardin0
their places of operations. Evidentl+, it is onl+ real-ti,e traffic data collection or recordin0 and a
subse6uent recourse to court-issued search and sei9ure /arrant that can succeed in ferretin0 the,
out.
Petitioners of course point out that the provisions of !ection '- are too broad and do not provide
a,ple safe0uards a0ainst crossin0 le0al boundaries and invadin0 the people?s ri0ht to privac+.
#he concern is understandable. ndeed, the Court reco0ni9es in Morfe v. Mutuc== that certain
constitutional 0uarantees /or$ to0ether to create 9ones of privac+ /herein 0overn,ental po/ers
,a+ not intrude, and that there exists an independent constitutional ri0ht of privac+. !uch ri0ht to
be left alone has been re0arded as the be0innin0 of all freedo,s.=8
But that ri0ht is not un6ualified. n Dhalen v. Roe,8( the 1nited !tates !upre,e Court classified
privac+ into t/o cate0ories2 decisional privac+ and infor,ational privac+. Decisional privac+
involves the ri0ht to independence in ,a$in0 certain i,portant decisions, /hile infor,ational
privac+ refers to the interest in avoidin0 disclosure of personal ,atters. t is the latter ri0htEthe
ri0ht to infor,ational privac+Ethat those /ho oppose 0overn,ent collection or recordin0 of
traffic data in real-ti,e see$ to protect.
nfor,ational privac+ has t/o aspects2 the ri0ht not to have private infor,ation disclosed, and
the ri0ht to live freel+ /ithout surveillance and intrusion.8' n deter,inin0 /hether or not a
,atter is entitled to the ri0ht to privac+, this Court has laid do/n a t/o-fold test. #he first is a
sub7ective test, /here one clai,in0 the ri0ht ,ust have an actual or le0iti,ate expectation of
privac+ over a certain ,atter. #he second is an ob7ective test, /here his or her expectation of
privac+ ,ust be one societ+ is prepared to accept as ob7ectivel+ reasonable.8-
!ince the validit+ of the c+bercri,e la/ is bein0 challen0ed, not in relation to its application to a
particular person or 0roup, petitioners? challen0e to !ection '- applies to all infor,ation and
co,,unications technolo0+ %C#& users, ,eanin0 the lar0e se0,ent of the population /ho use
all sorts of electronic devices to co,,unicate /ith one another. Conse6uentl+, the expectation of
privac+ is to be ,easured fro, the 0eneral public?s point of vie/. Dithout reasonable
expectation of privac+, the ri0ht to it /ould have no basis in fact.
As the !olicitor Beneral points out, an ordinar+ C# user /ho courses his co,,unication
throu0h a service provider, ,ust of necessit+ disclose to the latter, a third person, the traffic data
needed for connectin0 hi, to the recipient C# user. .or exa,ple, an C# user /ho /rites a text
,essa0e intended for another C# user ,ust furnish his service provider /ith his cellphone
nu,ber and the cellphone nu,ber of his recipient, acco,pan+in0 the ,essa0e sent. t is this
infor,ation that creates the traffic data. #rans,ittin0 co,,unications is a$in to puttin0 a letter
in an envelope properl+ addressed, sealin0 it closed, and sendin0 it throu0h the postal service.
#hose /ho post letters have no expectations that no one /ill read the infor,ation appearin0
outside the envelope.
Co,puter dataE,essa0es of all $indsEtravel across the internet in pac$ets and in a /a+ that
,a+ be li$ened to parcels of letters or thin0s that are sent throu0h the posts. Dhen data is sent
fro, an+ one source, the content is bro$en up into pac$ets and around each of these pac$ets is a
/rapper or header. #his header contains the traffic data2 infor,ation that tells co,puters /here
the pac$et ori0inated, /hat $ind of data is in the pac$et %!M!, voice call, video, internet chat
,essa0es, e,ail, online bro/sin0 data, etc.&, /here the pac$et is 0oin0, and ho/ the pac$et fits
to0ether /ith other pac$ets.84 #he difference is that traffic data sent throu0h the internet at ti,es
across the ocean do not disclose the actual na,es and addresses %residential or office& of the
sender and the recipient, onl+ their coded internet protocol %P& addresses. #he pac$ets travel
fro, one co,puter s+ste, to another /here their contents are pieced bac$ to0ether.
!ection '- does not per,it la/ enforce,ent authorities to loo$ into the contents of the ,essa0es
and uncover the identities of the sender and the recipient.
.or exa,ple, /hen one calls to spea$ to another throu0h his cellphone, the service provider?s
co,,unication?s s+ste, /ill put his voice ,essa0e into pac$ets and send the, to the other
person?s cellphone /here the+ are refitted to0ether and heard. #he latter?s spo$en repl+ is sent to
the caller in the sa,e /a+. #o be connected b+ the service provider, the sender reveals his
cellphone nu,ber to the service provider /hen he puts his call throu0h. <e also reveals the
cellphone nu,ber to the person he calls. #he other /a+s of co,,unicatin0 electronicall+ follo/
the sa,e basic pattern.
n !,ith v. Mar+land,85 cited b+ the !olicitor Beneral, the 1nited !tates !upre,e Court
reasoned that telephone users in the O)(s ,ust reali9e that the+ necessaril+ conve+ phone
nu,bers to the telephone co,pan+ in order to co,plete a call. #hat Court ruled that even if there
is an expectation that phone nu,bers one dials should re,ain private, such expectation is not one
that societ+ is prepared to reco0ni9e as reasonable.
n ,uch the sa,e /a+, C# users ,ust $no/ that the+ cannot co,,unicate or exchan0e data
/ith one another over c+berspace except throu0h so,e service providers to /ho, the+ ,ust
sub,it certain traffic data that are needed for a successful c+berspace co,,unication. #he
conve+ance of this data ta$es the, out of the private sphere, ,a$in0 the expectation to privac+
in re0ard to the, an expectation that societ+ is not prepared to reco0ni9e as reasonable.
#he Court, ho/ever, a0rees /ith >ustices Carpio and Brion that /hen see,in0l+ rando, bits of
traffic data are 0athered in bul$, pooled to0ether, and anal+9ed, the+ reveal patterns of activities
/hich can then be used to create profiles of the persons under surveillance. Dith enou0h traffic
data, anal+sts ,a+ be able to deter,ine a person?s close associations, reli0ious vie/s, political
affiliations, even sexual preferences. !uch infor,ation is li$el+ be+ond /hat the public ,a+
expect to be disclosed, and clearl+ falls /ithin ,atters protected b+ the ri0ht to privac+. But has
the procedure that !ection '- of the la/ provides been dra/n narro/l+ enou0h to protect
individual ri0htsL
!ection '- e,po/ers la/ enforce,ent authorities, A/ith due cause,A to collect or record b+
technical or electronic ,eans traffic data in real-ti,e. Petitioners point out that the phrase Adue
causeA has no precedent in la/ or 7urisprudence and that /hether there is due cause or not is left
to the discretion of the police. Repl+in0 to this, the !olicitor Beneral asserts that Con0ress is not
re6uired to define the ,eanin0 of ever+ /ord it uses in draftin0 the la/.
ndeed, courts are able to save va0ue provisions of la/ throu0h statutor+ construction. But the
c+bercri,e la/, dealin0 /ith a novel situation, fails to hint at the ,eanin0 it intends for the
phrase Adue cause.A #he !olicitor Beneral su00ests that Adue causeA should ,ean A7ust reason or
,otiveA and Aadherence to a la/ful procedure.A But the Court cannot dra/ this ,eanin0 since
!ection '- does not even bother to relate the collection of data to the probable co,,ission of a
particular cri,e. t 7ust sa+s, A/ith due cause,A thus 7ustif+in0 a 0eneral 0atherin0 of data. t is
a$in to the use of a 0eneral search /arrant that the Constitution prohibits.
Due cause is also not descriptive of the purpose for /hich data collection /ill be used. Dill the
la/ enforce,ent a0encies use the traffic data to identif+ the perpetrator of a c+ber attac$L "r /ill
it be used to build up a case a0ainst an identified suspectL Can the data be used to prevent
c+bercri,es fro, happenin0L
#he authorit+ that !ection '- 0ives la/ enforce,ent a0encies is too s/eepin0 and lac$s restraint.
Dhile it sa+s that traffic data collection should not disclose identities or content data, such
restraint is but an illusion. Ad,ittedl+, nothin0 can prevent la/ enforce,ent a0encies holdin0
these data in their hands fro, loo$in0 into the identit+ of their sender or receiver and /hat the
data contains. #his /ill unnecessaril+ expose the citi9enr+ to lea$ed infor,ation or, /orse, to
extortion fro, certain bad ele,ents in these a0encies.
!ection '-, of course, li,its the collection of traffic data to those Aassociated /ith specified
co,,unications.A But this supposed li,itation is no li,itation at all since, evidentl+, it is the la/
enforce,ent a0encies that /ould specif+ the tar0et co,,unications. #he po/er is virtuall+
li,itless, enablin0 la/ enforce,ent authorities to en0a0e in Afishin0 expedition,A choosin0
/hatever specified co,,unication the+ /ant. #his evidentl+ threatens the ri0ht of individuals to
privac+.
#he !olicitor Beneral points out that !ection '- needs to authori9e collection of traffic data Ain
real ti,eA because it is not possible to 0et a court /arrant that /ould authori9e the search of /hat
is a$in to a A,ovin0 vehicle.A But /arrantless search is associated /ith a police officer?s
deter,ination of probable cause that a cri,e has been co,,itted, that there is no opportunit+ for
0ettin0 a /arrant, and that unless the search is i,,ediatel+ carried out, the thin0 to be searched
stands to be re,oved. #hese preconditions are not provided in !ection '-.
#he !olicitor Beneral is honest enou0h to ad,it that !ection '- provides ,ini,al protection to
internet users and that the procedure envisioned b+ the la/ could be better served b+ providin0
for ,ore robust safe0uards. <is bare assurance that la/ enforce,ent authorities /ill not abuse
the provisions of !ection '- is of course not enou0h. #he 0rant of the po/er to trac$ c+berspace
co,,unications in real ti,e and deter,ine their sources and destinations ,ust be narro/l+
dra/n to preclude abuses.8*
Petitioners also as$ that the Court stri$e do/n !ection '- for bein0 violative of the void-for-
va0ueness doctrine and the overbreadth doctrine. #hese doctrines ho/ever, have been
consistentl+ held b+ this Court to appl+ onl+ to free speech cases. But !ection '- on its o/n
neither re0ulates nor punishes an+ t+pe of speech. #herefore, such anal+sis is unnecessar+.
#his Court is ,indful that advances in technolo0+ allo/ the 0overn,ent and $indred institutions
to ,onitor individuals and place the, under surveillance in /a+s that have previousl+ been
i,practical or even i,possible. AAll the forces of a technolo0ical a0e x x x operate to narro/ the
area of privac+ and facilitate intrusions into it. n ,odern ter,s, the capacit+ to ,aintain and
support this enclave of private life ,ar$s the difference bet/een a de,ocratic and a totalitarian
societ+.A8: #he Court ,ust ensure that la/s see$in0 to ta$e advanta0e of these technolo0ies be
/ritten /ith specificit+ and definiteness as to ensure respect for the ri0hts that the Constitution
0uarantees.
!ection '4 of the C+bercri,e ;a/
!ection '4 provides2
!ec. '4. Preservation of Co,puter Data. E #he inte0rit+ of traffic data and subscriber
infor,ation relatin0 to co,,unication services provided b+ a service provider shall be preserved
for a ,ini,u, period of six %:& ,onths fro, the date of the transaction. Content data shall be
si,ilarl+ preserved for six %:& ,onths fro, the date of receipt of the order fro, la/ enforce,ent
authorities re6uirin0 its preservation.
;a/ enforce,ent authorities ,a+ order a one-ti,e extension for another six %:& ,onths2
Provided, #hat once co,puter data preserved, trans,itted or stored b+ a service provider is used
as evidence in a case, the ,ere furnishin0 to such service provider of the trans,ittal docu,ent to
the "ffice of the Prosecutor shall be dee,ed a notification to preserve the co,puter data until the
ter,ination of the case.
#he service provider ordered to preserve co,puter data shall $eep confidential the order and its
co,pliance.
Petitioners in B.R. -(448'8) clai, that !ection '4 constitutes an undue deprivation of the ri0ht
to propert+. #he+ li$en the data preservation order that la/ enforce,ent authorities are to issue
as a for, of 0arnish,ent of personal propert+ in civil forfeiture proceedin0s. !uch order
prevents internet users fro, accessin0 and disposin0 of traffic data that essentiall+ belon0 to
the,.
No doubt, the contents of ,aterials sent or received throu0h the internet belon0 to their authors
or recipients and are to be considered private co,,unications. But it is not clear that a service
provider has an obli0ation to indefinitel+ $eep a cop+ of the sa,e as the+ pass its s+ste, for the
benefit of users. B+ virtue of !ection '4, ho/ever, the la/ no/ re6uires service providers to
$eep traffic data and subscriber infor,ation relatin0 to co,,unication services for at least six
,onths fro, the date of the transaction and those relatin0 to content data for at least six ,onths
fro, receipt of the order for their preservation.
Actuall+, the user ou0ht to have $ept a cop+ of that data /hen it crossed his co,puter if he /as
so ,inded. #he service provider has never assu,ed responsibilit+ for their loss or deletion /hile
in its $eep.
At an+ rate, as the !olicitor Beneral correctl+ points out, the data that service providers preserve
on orders of la/ enforce,ent authorities are not ,ade inaccessible to users b+ reason of the
issuance of such orders. #he process of preservin0 data /ill not undul+ ha,per the nor,al
trans,ission or use of the sa,e.
!ection '5 of the C+bercri,e ;a/
!ection '5 provides2
!ec. '5. Disclosure of Co,puter Data. E ;a/ enforce,ent authorities, upon securin0 a court
/arrant, shall issue an order re6uirin0 an+ person or service provider to disclose or sub,it
subscriber?s infor,ation, traffic data or relevant data in hisFits possession or control /ithin
sevent+-t/o %)-& hours fro, receipt of the order in relation to a valid co,plaint officiall+
doc$eted and assi0ned for investi0ation and the disclosure is necessar+ and relevant for the
purpose of investi0ation.
#he process envisioned in !ection '5 is bein0 li$ened to the issuance of a subpoena. Petitioners?
ob7ection is that the issuance of subpoenas is a 7udicial function. But it is /ell-settled that the
po/er to issue subpoenas is not exclusivel+ a 7udicial function. Executive a0encies have the
po/er to issue subpoena as an ad7unct of their investi0ator+ po/ers.8=
Besides, /hat !ection '5 envisions is ,erel+ the enforce,ent of a dul+ issued court /arrant, a
function usuall+ lod0ed in the hands of la/ enforcers to enable the, to carr+ out their executive
functions. #he prescribed procedure for disclosure /ould not constitute an unla/ful search or
sei9ure nor /ould it violate the privac+ of co,,unications and correspondence. Disclosure can
be ,ade onl+ after 7udicial intervention.
!ection '* of the C+bercri,e ;a/
!ection '* provides2
!ec. '*. !earch, !ei9ure and Exa,ination of Co,puter Data. E Dhere a search and sei9ure
/arrant is properl+ issued, the la/ enforce,ent authorities shall li$e/ise have the follo/in0
po/ers and duties.
Dithin the ti,e period specified in the /arrant, to conduct interception, as defined in this Act,
and2
%a& #o secure a co,puter s+ste, or a co,puter data stora0e ,ediu,3
%b& #o ,a$e and retain a cop+ of those co,puter data secured3
%c& #o ,aintain the inte0rit+ of the relevant stored co,puter data3
%d& #o conduct forensic anal+sis or exa,ination of the co,puter data stora0e ,ediu,3
and
%e& #o render inaccessible or re,ove those co,puter data in the accessed co,puter or
co,puter and co,,unications net/or$.
Pursuant thereof, the la/ enforce,ent authorities ,a+ order an+ person /ho has $no/led0e
about the functionin0 of the co,puter s+ste, and the ,easures to protect and preserve the
co,puter data therein to provide, as is reasonable, the necessar+ infor,ation, to enable the
underta$in0 of the search, sei9ure and exa,ination.
;a/ enforce,ent authorities ,a+ re6uest for an extension of ti,e to co,plete the exa,ination
of the co,puter data stora0e ,ediu, and to ,a$e a return thereon but in no case for a period
lon0er than thirt+ %4(& da+s fro, date of approval b+ the court.
Petitioners challen0e !ection '* on the assu,ption that it /ill supplant established search and
sei9ure procedures. "n its face, ho/ever, !ection '* ,erel+ enu,erates the duties of la/
enforce,ent authorities that /ould ensure the proper collection, preservation, and use of
co,puter s+ste, or data that have been sei9ed b+ virtue of a court /arrant. #he exercise of these
duties do not pose an+ threat on the ri0hts of the person fro, /ho, the+ /ere ta$en. !ection '*
does not appear to supersede existin0 search and sei9ure rules but ,erel+ supple,ents the,.
!ection ') of the C+bercri,e ;a/
!ection ') provides2
!ec. '). Destruction of Co,puter Data. E 1pon expiration of the periods as provided in
!ections '4 and '*, service providers and la/ enforce,ent authorities, as the case ,a+ be, shall
i,,ediatel+ and co,pletel+ destro+ the co,puter data sub7ect of a preservation and
exa,ination.
!ection ') /ould have the co,puter data, previous sub7ect of preservation or exa,ination,
destro+ed or deleted upon the lapse of the prescribed period. #he !olicitor Beneral 7ustifies this
as necessar+ to clear up the service provider?s stora0e s+ste,s and prevent overload. t /ould
also ensure that investi0ations are 6uic$l+ concluded.
Petitioners clai, that such destruction of co,puter data sub7ect of previous preservation or
exa,ination violates the user?s ri0ht a0ainst deprivation of propert+ /ithout due process of la/.
But, as alread+ stated, it is unclear that the user has a de,andable ri0ht to re6uire the service
provider to have that cop+ of the data saved indefinitel+ for hi, in its stora0e s+ste,. f he
/anted the, preserved, he should have saved the, in his co,puter /hen he 0enerated the data
or received it. <e could also re6uest the service provider for a cop+ before it is deleted.
!ection '8 of the C+bercri,e ;a/
!ection '8 e,po/ers the Depart,ent of >ustice to restrict or bloc$ access to co,puter data2
!ec. '8. Restrictin0 or Bloc$in0 Access to Co,puter Data.E Dhen a co,puter data is pri,a
facie found to be in violation of the provisions of this Act, the D"> shall issue an order to restrict
or bloc$ access to such co,puter data.
Petitioners contest !ection '8 in that it stifles freedo, of expression and violates the ri0ht
a0ainst unreasonable searches and sei9ures. #he !olicitor Beneral concedes that this provision
,a+ be unconstitutional. But since la/s en7o+ a presu,ption of constitutionalit+, the Court ,ust
satisf+ itself that !ection '8 indeed violates the freedo, and ri0ht ,entioned.
Co,puter data88 ,a+ refer to entire pro0ra,s or lines of code, includin0 ,al/are, as /ell as
files that contain texts, i,a0es, audio, or video recordin0s. Dithout havin0 to 0o into a len0th+
discussion of propert+ ri0hts in the di0ital space, it is indisputable that co,puter data, produced
or created b+ their /riters or authors ,a+ constitute personal propert+. Conse6uentl+, the+ are
protected fro, unreasonable searches and sei9ures, /hether /hile stored in their personal
co,puters or in the service provider?s s+ste,s.
!ection -, Article of the '8=) Constitution provides that the ri0ht to be secure in one?s papers
and effects a0ainst unreasonable searches and sei9ures of /hatever nature and for an+ purpose
shall be inviolable. .urther, it states that no search /arrant shall issue except upon probable
cause to be deter,ined personall+ b+ the 7ud0e. <ere, the Bovern,ent, in effect, sei9es and
places the co,puter data under its control and disposition /ithout a /arrant. #he Depart,ent of
>ustice order cannot substitute for 7udicial search /arrant.
#he content of the co,puter data can also constitute speech. n such a case, !ection '8 operates
as a restriction on the freedo, of expression over c+berspace. Certainl+ not all for,s of speech
are protected. ;e0islature ,a+, /ithin constitutional bounds, declare certain $inds of expression
as ille0al. But for an executive officer to sei9e content alle0ed to be unprotected /ithout an+
7udicial /arrant, it is not enou0h for hi, to be of the opinion that such content violates so,e la/,
for to do so /ould ,a$e hi, 7ud0e, 7ur+, and executioner all rolled into one.'((
Not onl+ does !ection '8 preclude an+ 7udicial intervention, but it also disre0ards 7urisprudential
0uidelines established to deter,ine the validit+ of restrictions on speech. Restraints on free
speech are 0enerall+ evaluated on one of or a co,bination of three tests2 the dan0erous tendenc+
doctrine, the balancin0 of interest test, and the clear and present dan0er rule.'(' !ection '8,
ho/ever, ,erel+ re6uires that the data to be bloc$ed be found pri,a facie in violation of an+
provision of the c+bercri,e la/. #a$in0 !ection : into consideration, this can actuall+ be ,ade
to appl+ in relation to an+ penal provision. t does not ta$e into consideration an+ of the three
tests ,entioned above.
#he Court is therefore co,pelled to stri$e do/n !ection '8 for bein0 violative of the
constitutional 0uarantees to freedo, of expression and a0ainst unreasonable searches and
sei9ures.
!ection -( of the C+bercri,e ;a/
!ection -( provides2
!ec. -(. Nonco,pliance. E .ailure to co,pl+ /ith the provisions of Chapter G hereof
specificall+ the orders fro, la/ enforce,ent authorities shall be punished as a violation of
Presidential Decree No. '=-8 /ith i,prison,ent of prision correctional in its ,axi,u, period
or a fine of "ne hundred thousand pesos %Php'((,(((.((& or both, for each and ever+
nonco,pliance /ith an order issued b+ la/ enforce,ent authorities.
Petitioners challen0e !ection -(, alle0in0 that it is a bill of attainder. #he ar0u,ent is that the
,ere failure to co,pl+ constitutes a le0islative findin0 of 0uilt, /ithout re0ard to situations
/here non-co,pliance /ould be reasonable or valid.
But since the non-co,pliance /ould be punished as a violation of Presidential Decree %P.D.&
'=-8,'(- !ection -( necessaril+ incorporates ele,ents of the offense /hich are defined therein.
f Con0ress had intended for !ection -( to constitute an offense in and of itself, it /ould not have
had to ,a$e reference to an+ other statue or provision.
P.D. '=-8 states2
!ection '. #he penalt+ of prision correccional in its ,axi,u, period, or a fine ran0in0 fro,
',((( to :,((( pesos, or both, shall be i,posed upon an+ person /ho $no/in0l+ or /illfull+
obstructs, i,pedes, frustrates or dela+s the apprehension of suspects and the investi0ation and
prosecution of cri,inal cases b+ co,,ittin0 an+ of the follo/in0 acts2
x x x.
#hus, the act of non-co,pliance, for it to be punishable, ,ust still be done A$no/in0l+ or
/illfull+.A #here ,ust still be a 7udicial deter,ination of 0uilt, durin0 /hich, as the !olicitor
Beneral assu,es, defense and 7ustifications for non-co,pliance ,a+ be raised. #hus, !ection -(
is valid insofar as it applies to the provisions of Chapter G /hich are not struc$ do/n b+ the
Court.
!ections -5 and -:%a& of the C+bercri,e ;a/
!ections -5 and -:%a& provide2
!ec. -5. C+bercri,e nvesti0ation and Coordinatin0 Center.@ #here is hereb+ created, /ithin
thirt+ %4(& da+s fro, the effectivit+ of this Act, an inter-a0enc+ bod+ to be $no/n as the
C+bercri,e nvesti0ation and Coordinatin0 Center %CCC&, under the ad,inistrative supervision
of the "ffice of the President, for polic+ coordination a,on0 concerned a0encies and for the
for,ulation and enforce,ent of the national c+bersecurit+ plan.
!ec. -:. Po/ers and .unctions.@ #he CCC shall have the follo/in0 po/ers and functions2
%a& #o for,ulate a national c+bersecurit+ plan and extend i,,ediate assistance of real ti,e
co,,ission of c+bercri,e offenses throu0h a co,puter e,er0enc+ response tea, %CER#&3 x x
x.
Petitioners ,ainl+ contend that Con0ress invalidl+ dele0ated its po/er /hen it 0ave the
C+bercri,e nvesti0ation and Coordinatin0 Center %CCC& the po/er to for,ulate a national
c+bersecurit+ plan /ithout an+ sufficient standards or para,eters for it to follo/.
n order to deter,ine /hether there is undue dele0ation of le0islative po/er, the Court has
adopted t/o tests2 the co,pleteness test and the sufficient standard test. 1nder the first test, the
la/ ,ust be co,plete in all its ter,s and conditions /hen it leaves the le0islature such that /hen
it reaches the dele0ate, the onl+ thin0 he /ill have to do is to enforce it.1avvphi1 #he second test
,andates ade6uate 0uidelines or li,itations in the la/ to deter,ine the boundaries of the
dele0ate?s authorit+ and prevent the dele0ation fro, runnin0 riot.'(4
<ere, the c+bercri,e la/ is co,plete in itself /hen it directed the CCC to for,ulate and
i,ple,ent a national c+bersecurit+ plan. Also, contrar+ to the position of the petitioners, the la/
0ave sufficient standards for the CCC to follo/ /hen it provided a definition of c+bersecurit+.
C+bersecurit+ refers to the collection of tools, policies, ris$ ,ana0e,ent approaches, actions,
trainin0, best practices, assurance and technolo0ies that can be used to protect c+ber environ,ent
and or0ani9ation and user?s assets.'(5 #his definition serves as the para,eters /ithin /hich
CCC should /or$ in for,ulatin0 the c+bersecurit+ plan.
.urther, the for,ulation of the c+bersecurit+ plan is consistent /ith the polic+ of the la/ to
Aprevent and co,bat such Pc+berQ offenses b+ facilitatin0 their detection, investi0ation, and
prosecution at both the do,estic and international levels, and b+ providin0 arran0e,ents for fast
and reliable international cooperation.A'(* #his polic+ is clearl+ adopted in the interest of la/
and order, /hich has been considered as sufficient standard.'(: <ence, !ections -5 and -:%a& are
li$e/ise valid.
D<ERE."RE, the Court DEC;ARE!2
'. G"D for bein0 1NC"N!##1#"NA;2
a. !ection 5%c&%4& of Republic Act '(')* that penali9es postin0 of unsolicited
co,,ercial co,,unications3
b. !ection '- that authori9es the collection or recordin0 of traffic data in real-
ti,e3 and
c. !ection '8 of the sa,e Act that authori9es the Depart,ent of >ustice to restrict
or bloc$ access to suspected Co,puter Data.
-. GA;D and C"N!##1#"NA;2
a. !ection 5%a&%'& that penali9es accessin0 a co,puter s+ste, /ithout ri0ht3
b. !ection 5%a&%4& that penali9es data interference, includin0 trans,ission of
viruses3
c. !ection 5%a&%:& that penali9es c+ber-s6uattin0 or ac6uirin0 do,ain na,e over
the internet in bad faith to the pre7udice of others3
d. !ection 5%b&%4& that penali9es identit+ theft or the use or ,isuse of identif+in0
infor,ation belon0in0 to another3
e. !ection 5%c&%'& that penali9es c+bersex or the lascivious exhibition of sexual
or0ans or sexual activit+ for favor or consideration3
f. !ection 5%c&%-& that penali9es the production of child porno0raph+3
0. !ection : that i,poses penalties one de0ree hi0her /hen cri,es defined under
the Revised Penal Code are co,,itted /ith the use of infor,ation and
co,,unications technolo0ies3
h. !ection = that prescribes the penalties for c+bercri,es3
i. !ection '4 that per,its la/ enforce,ent authorities to re6uire service providers
to preserve traffic data and subscriber infor,ation as /ell as specified content
data for six ,onths3
7. !ection '5 that authori9es the disclosure of co,puter data under a court-issued
/arrant3
$. !ection '* that authori9es the search, sei9ure, and exa,ination of co,puter
data under a court-issued /arrant3
l. !ection ') that authori9es the destruction of previousl+ preserved co,puter data
after the expiration of the prescribed holdin0 periods3
,. !ection -( that penali9es obstruction of 7ustice in relation to c+bercri,e
investi0ations3
n. !ection -5 that establishes a C+bercri,e nvesti0ation and Coordinatin0 Center
%CCC&3
o. !ection -:%a& that defines the CCC?s Po/ers and .unctions3 and
p. Articles 4*4, 4*5, 4:', and 4:- of the Revised Penal Code that penali9es libel.
.urther, the Court DEC;ARE!2
'. !ection 5%c&%5& that penali9es online libel as GA;D and C"N!##1#"NA; /ith
respect to the ori0inal author of the post3 but G"D and 1NC"N!##1#"NA; /ith
respect to others /ho si,pl+ receive the post and react to it3 and
-. !ection * that penali9es aidin0 or abettin0 and atte,pt in the co,,ission of
c+bercri,es as GA ; D and C"N!##1#"NA; onl+ in relation to !ection 5%a&%'& on
lle0al Access, !ection 5%a&%-& on lle0al nterception, !ection 5%a&%4& on Data
nterference, !ection 5%a&%5& on !+ste,
nterference, !ection 5%a&%*& on Misuse of Devices, !ection 5%a&%:& on C+ber-s6uattin0, !ection
5%b&%'& on Co,puter-related .or0er+, !ection 5%b&%-& on Co,puter-related .raud, !ection 5%b&%4&
on Co,puter-related dentit+ #heft, and !ection 5%c&%'& on C+bersex3 but G"D and
1NC"N!##1#"NA; /ith respect to !ections 5%c&%-& on Child Porno0raph+, 5%c&%4& on
1nsolicited Co,,ercial Co,,unications, and 5%c&%5& on online ;ibel.1wphi1
;astl+, the Court RE!";GE! to ;EAGE #<E DE#ERMNA#"N of the correct application of
!ection ) that authori9es prosecution of the offender under both the Revised Penal Code and
Republic Act '(')* to actual cases, D#< #<E ERCEP#"N of the cri,es of2
'. "nline libel as to /hich, char0in0 the offender under both !ection 5%c&%5& of Republic
Act '(')* and Article 4*4 of the Revised Penal Code constitutes a violation of the
proscription a0ainst double 7eopard+3 as /ell as
-. Child porno0raph+ co,,itted online as to /hich, char0in0 the offender under both
!ection 5%c&%-& of Republic Act '(')* and Republic Act 8))* or the Anti-Child
Porno0raph+ Act of -((8 also constitutes a violation of the sa,e proscription, and, in
respect to these, is G"D and 1NC"N!##1#"NA;.
!" "RDERED.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 2095-- No>e6ber 1*, 2013
GRECO !NTONIOUS )ED! ). )E"GIC! JOSE M. #I""EG!S JR. JOSE ".
GOND!"ED REU)EN M. !)!NTE a%& 0UINTIN P!REDES S!N DIEGO, Petitioners,
vs.
'ONOR!)"E E(ECUTI#E SECRET!R$ P!0UITO N. OC'O! JR. SECRET!R$ OF
)UDGET !ND M!N!GEMENT F"ORENCIO ). !)!D, N!TION!" TRE!SURER
ROS!"I! #. DE "EON SEN!TE OF T'E P'I"IPPINES re1re2e%3e& by FR!N,"IN M.
DRI"ON 6 ;42 <a1a<43y a2 SEN!TE PRESIDENT a%& 'OUSE OF REPRESENT!TI#ES
re1re2e%3e& by FE"ICI!NO S. )E"MONTE, JR. 4% ;42 <a1a<43y a2 SPE!,ER OF T'E
'OUSE, Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
G.R. No. 2094*3
SOCI!" JUSTICE SOCIET$ .SJS/ PRESIDENT S!MSON S. !"C!NT!R!, Petitioner,
vs.
'ONOR!)"E FR!N,"IN M. DRI"ON 4% ;42 <a1a<43y a2 SEN!TE PRESIDENT a%&
'ONOR!)"E FE"ICI!NO S. )E"MONTE, JR., 4% ;42 <a1a<43y a2 SPE!,ER OF T'E
'OUSE OF REPRESENT!TI#ES, Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
G.R. No. 20*251
PEDRITO M. NEPOMUCENO, For6er Mayor:)oa<, Mar4%&u7ue For6er Pro>4%<4a?
)oar& Me6ber :Pro>4%<e o@ Mar4%&u7ue, Petitioner,
vs.
PRESIDENT )ENIGNO SIMEON C. !0UINO IIIK a%& SECRET!R$ F"ORENCIO
)UTC' !)!D, DEP!RTMENT OF )UDGET !ND M!N!GEMENT, Respondents.
D E C ! " N
PER"!S:)ERN!)E, J.:
AExperience is the oracle of truth.A'
->a,es Madison
Before the Court are consolidated petitions- ta$en under Rule :* of the Rules of Court, all of
/hich assail the constitutionalit+ of the Por$ Barrel !+ste,. Due to the co,plexit+ of the sub7ect
,atter, the Court shall heretofore discuss the s+ste,Os conceptual underpinnin0s before detailin0
the particulars of the constitutional challen0e.
#he .acts
. Por$ Barrel2 Beneral Concept.
APor$ BarrelA is political parlance of A,erican -En0lish ori0in.4 <istoricall+, its usa0e
,a+ be traced to the de0radin0 ritual of rollin0 out a barrel stuffed /ith por$ to a
,ultitude of blac$ slaves /ho /ould cast their fa,ished bodies into the porcine feast to
assua0e their hun0er /ith ,orsels co,in0 fro, the 0enerosit+ of their /ell-fed ,aster.5
#his practice /as later co,pared to the actions of A,erican le0islators in tr+in0 to direct
federal bud0ets in favor of their districts.* Dhile the advent of refri0eration has ,ade the
actual por$ barrel obsolete, it persists in reference to political bills that Abrin0 ho,e the
baconA to a le0islatorOs district and constituents.: n a ,ore technical sense, APor$
BarrelA refers to an appropriation of 0overn,ent spendin0 ,eant for locali9ed pro7ects
and secured solel+ or pri,aril+ to brin0 ,one+ to a representativeNs district.) !o,e
scholars on the sub7ect further use it to refer to le0islative control of local
appropriations.=
n the Philippines, APor$ BarrelA has been co,,onl+ referred to as lu,p-su,,
discretionar+ funds of Me,bers of the ;e0islature,8 althou0h, as /ill be later discussed,
its usa0e /ould evolve in reference to certain funds of the Executive.
. <istor+ of Con0ressional Por$ Barrel in the Philippines.
A. Pre-Martial ;a/ Era %'8---'8)-&.
Act 4(55,'( or the Public Dor$s Act of '8--, is considered'' as the earliest for,
of ACon0ressional Por$ BarrelA in the Philippines since the utili9ation of the funds
appropriated therein /ere sub7ected to post-enact,ent le0islator approval.
Particularl+, in the area of fund release, !ection 4'- provides that the su,s
appropriated for certain public /or$s pro7ects'4 Ashall be distributed x x x sub7ect
to the approval of a 7oint co,,ittee elected b+ the !enate and the <ouse of
Representatives. A#he co,,ittee fro, each <ouse ,a+ also authori9e one of its
,e,bers to approve the distribution ,ade b+ the !ecretar+ of Co,,erce and
Co,,unications.A'5 Also, in the area of fund reali0n,ent, the sa,e section
provides that the said secretar+, A/ith the approval of said 7oint co,,ittee, or of
the authori9ed ,e,bers thereof, ,a+, for the purposes of said distribution,
transfer unexpended portions of an+ ite, of appropriation under this Act to an+
other ite, hereunder.A
n '8*(, it has been docu,ented'* that post-enact,ent le0islator participation
broadened fro, the areas of fund release and reali0n,ent to the area of pro7ect
identification. Durin0 that +ear, the ,echanics of the public /or$s act /as
,odified to the extent that the discretion of choosin0 pro7ects /as transferred
fro, the !ecretar+ of Co,,erce and Co,,unications to le0islators. A.or the first
ti,e, the la/ carried a list of pro7ects selected b+ Me,bers of Con0ress, the+
Obein0 the representatives of the people, either on their o/n account or b+
consultation /ith local officials or civil leaders.OA': Durin0 this period, the por$
barrel process co,,enced /ith local 0overn,ent councils, civil 0roups, and
individuals appealin0 to Con0ress,en or !enators for pro7ects. Petitions that /ere
acco,,odated for,ed part of a le0islatorOs allocation, and the a,ount each
le0islator /ould eventuall+ 0et is deter,ined in a caucus convened b+ the
,a7orit+. #he a,ount /as then inte0rated into the ad,inistration bill prepared b+
the Depart,ent of Public Dor$s and Co,,unications. #hereafter, the !enate and
the <ouse of Representatives added their o/n provisions to the bill until it /as
si0ned into la/ b+ the President @ the Public Dor$s Act.') n the '8:(Os,
ho/ever, por$ barrel le0islation reportedl+ ceased in vie/ of the stale,ate
bet/een the <ouse of Representatives and the !enate.'=
B. Martial ;a/ Era %'8)--'8=:&.
Dhile the previousA Con0ressional Por$ BarrelA /as apparentl+ discontinued in
'8)- after Martial ;a/ /as declared, an era /hen Aone ,an controlled the
le0islature,A'8 the reprieve /as onl+ te,porar+. B+ '8=-, the Batasan0 Pa,bansa
had alread+ introduced a ne/ ite, in the Beneral Appropriations Act %BAA&
called theA !upport for ;ocal Develop,ent Pro7ectsA %!;DP& under the article on
ANational Aid to ;ocal Bovern,ent 1nitsA. Based on reports,-( it /as under the
!;DP that the practice of 0ivin0 lu,p-su, allocations to individual le0islators
be0an, /ith each asse,bl+,an receivin0 P*((,(((.((. #hereafter, asse,bl+,en
/ould co,,unicate their pro7ect preferences to the Ministr+ of Bud0et and
Mana0e,ent for approval. #hen, the said ,inistr+ /ould release the allocation
papers to the Ministr+ of ;ocal Bovern,ents, /hich /ould, in turn, issue the
chec$s to the cit+ or ,unicipal treasurers in the asse,bl+,anOs localit+. t has
been further reported that ACon0ressional Por$ BarrelA pro7ects under the !;DP
also be0an to cover not onl+ public /or$s pro7ects, or so- called Ahard pro7ectsA,
but also Asoft pro7ectsA,-' or non-public /or$s pro7ects such as those /hich
/ould fall under the cate0ories of, a,on0 others, education, health and
livelihood.--
C. Post-Martial ;a/ Era2
Cora9on Co7uan0co A6uino Ad,inistration %'8=:-'88-&.
After the ED!A People Po/er Revolution in '8=: and the restoration of
Philippine de,ocrac+, ACon0ressional Por$ BarrelA /as revived in the for, of the
AMindanao Develop,ent .undA and the AGisa+as Develop,ent .undA /hich /ere
created /ith lu,p-su, appropriations of P5=( Million and P-5( Million,
respectivel+, for the fundin0 of develop,ent pro7ects in the Mindanao and
Gisa+as areas in '8=8. t has been docu,ented-4 that the cla,or raised b+ the
!enators and the ;u9on le0islators for a si,ilar fundin0, pro,pted the creation of
the ACountr+/ide Develop,ent .undA %CD.& /hich /as inte0rated into the '88(
BAA-5 /ith an initial fundin0 of P-.4 Billion to cover As,all local infrastructure
and other priorit+ co,,unit+ pro7ects.A
1nder the BAAs for the +ears '88' and '88-,-* CD. funds /ere, /ith the
approval of the President, to be released directl+ to the i,ple,entin0 a0encies but
Asub7ect to the sub,ission of the re6uired list of pro7ects and activities.AAlthou0h
the BAAs fro, '88( to '88- /ere silent as to the a,ounts of allocations of the
individual le0islators, as /ell as their participation in the identification of
pro7ects, it has been reported-: that b+ '88-, Representatives /ere receivin0
P'-.* Million each in CD. funds, /hile !enators /ere receivin0 P'= Million
each, /ithout an+ li,itation or 6ualification, and that the+ could identif+ an+ $ind
of pro7ect, fro, hard or infrastructure pro7ects such as roads, brid0es, and
buildin0s to Asoft pro7ectsA such as textboo$s, ,edicines, and scholarships.-)
D. .idel Galde9 Ra,os %Ra,os& Ad,inistration %'88--'88=&.
#he follo/in0 +ear, or in '884,-= the BAA explicitl+ stated that the release of
CD. funds /as to be ,ade upon the sub,ission of the list of pro7ects and
activities identified b+, a,on0 others, individual le0islators. .or the first ti,e, the
'884 CD. Article included an allocation for the Gice-President.-8 As such,
Representatives /ere allocated P'-.* Million each in CD. funds, !enators, P'=
Million each, and the Gice-President, P-( Million.
n '885,4( '88*,4' and '88:,4- the BAAs contained the sa,e provisions on
pro7ect identification and fund release as found in the '884 CD. Article. n
addition, ho/ever, the Depart,ent of Bud0et and Mana0e,ent %DBM& /as
directed to sub,it reports to the !enate Co,,ittee on .inance and the <ouse
Co,,ittee on Appropriations on the releases ,ade fro, the funds.44
1nder the '88)45 CD. Article, Me,bers of Con0ress and the Gice-President, in
consultation /ith the i,ple,entin0 a0enc+ concerned, /ere directed to sub,it to
the DBM the list of *(H of pro7ects to be funded fro, their respective CD.
allocations /hich shall be dul+ endorsed b+ %a& the !enate President and the
Chair,an of the Co,,ittee on .inance, in the case of the !enate, and %b& the
!pea$er of the <ouse of Representatives and the Chair,an of the Co,,ittee on
Appropriations, in the case of the <ouse of Representatives3 /hile the list for the
re,ainin0 *(H /as to be sub,itted /ithin six %:& ,onths thereafter. #he sa,e
article also stated that the pro7ect list, /hich /ould be published b+ the DBM,4*
Ashall be the basis for the release of fundsA and that Ano funds appropriated herein
shall be disbursed for pro7ects not included in the list herein re6uired.A
#he follo/in0 +ear, or in '88=,4: the fore0oin0 provisions re0ardin0 the re6uired
lists and endorse,ents /ere reproduced, except that the publication of the pro7ect
list /as no lon0er re6uired as the list itself sufficed for the release of CD. .unds.
#he CD. /as not, ho/ever, the lone for, of ACon0ressional Por$ BarrelA at that
ti,e. "ther for,s of ACon0ressional Por$ BarrelA /ere reportedl+ fashioned and
inserted into the BAA %called ACon0ressional nsertionsA or ACsA& in order to
perpetuate the ad ,inistrationOs political a0enda.4) t has been articulated that
since Cs Afor,ed part and parcel of the bud0ets of executive depart,ents, the+
/ere not easil+ identifiable and /ere thus harder to ,onitor.A Nonetheless, the
la/,a$ers the,selves as /ell as the finance and bud0et officials of the
i,ple,entin0 a0encies, as /ell as the DBM, purportedl+ $ne/ about the
insertions.4= Exa,ples of these Cs are the Depart,ent of Education %DepEd&
!chool Buildin0 .und, the Con0ressional nitiative Allocations, the Public Dor$s
.und, the El NiSo .und, and the Povert+ Alleviation .und.48 #he allocations for
the !chool Buildin0 .und, particularl+, Tshall be ,ade upon prior consultation
/ith the representative of the le0islative district concerned.U5( !i,ilarl+, the
le0islators had the po/er to direct ho/, /here and /hen these appropriations
/ere to be spent.5'
E. >oseph E7ercito Estrada %Estrada& Ad,inistration %'88=--(('&.
n '888,5- the CD. /as re,oved in the BAA and replaced b+ three %4& separate
for,s of Cs, na,el+, the A.ood !ecurit+ Pro0ra, .und,A54 the A;in0ap Para !a
Mahihirap Pro0ra, .und,A55 and the ARuralF1rban Develop,ent nfrastructure
Pro0ra, .und,A5* all of /hich contained a special provision re6uirin0 Aprior
consultationA /ith the Me,ber s of Con0ress for the release of the funds.
t /as in the +ear -(((5: that the APriorit+ Develop,ent Assistance .undA
%PDA.& appeared in the BAA. #he re6uire,ent of Aprior consultation /ith the
respective Representative of the DistrictA before PDA. funds /ere directl+
released to the i,ple,entin0 a0enc+ concerned /as explicitl+ stated in the -(((
PDA. Article. Moreover, reali0n,ent of funds to an+ expense cate0or+ /as
expressl+ allo/ed, /ith the sole condition that no a,ount shall be used to fund
personal services and other personnel benefits.5) #he succeedin0 PDA.
provisions re,ained the sa,e in vie/ of the re-enact,ent5= of the -((( BAA for
the +ear -(('.
.. Bloria Macapa0al-Arro+o %Arro+o& Ad,inistration %-(('--('(&.
#he -((-58 PDA. Article /as brief and strai0htfor/ard as it ,erel+ contained a
sin0le special provision orderin0 the release of the funds directl+ to the
i,ple,entin0 a0enc+ or local 0overn,ent unit concerned, /ithout further
6ualifications. #he follo/in0 +ear, -((4,*( the sa,e sin0le provision /as present,
/ith si,pl+ an expansion of purpose and express authorit+ to reali0n.
Nevertheless, the provisions in the -((4 bud0ets of the Depart,ent of Public
Dor$s and <i0h/a+s*' %DPD<& and the DepEd*- re6uired prior consultation
/ith Me,bers of Con0ress on the aspects of i,ple,entation dele0ation and
pro7ect list sub,ission, respectivel+. n -((5, the -((4 BAA /as re-enacted.*4
n -((*,*5 the PDA. Article provided that the PDA. shall be used Ato fund
priorit+ pro0ra,s and pro7ects under the ten point a0enda of the national
0overn,ent and shall be released directl+ to the i,ple,entin0 a0encies.A t also
introduced the pro0ra, ,enu concept,** /hich is essentiall+ a list of 0eneral
pro0ra,s and i,ple,entin0 a0encies fro, /hich a particular PDA. pro7ect ,a+
be subse6uentl+ chosen b+ the identif+in0 authorit+. #he -((* BAA /as re-
enacted*: in -((: and hence, operated on the sa,e bases. n si,ilar re0ard, the
pro0ra, ,enu concept /as consistentl+ inte0rated into the -((),*) -((=,*=
-((8,*8 and -('(:( BAAs.
#extuall+, the PDA. Articles fro, -((- to -('( /ere silent /ith respect to the
specific a,ounts allocated for the individual le0islators, as /ell as their
participation in the proposal and identification of PDA. pro7ects to be funded. n
contrast to the PDA. Articles, ho/ever, the provisions under the DepEd !chool
Buildin0 Pro0ra, and the DPD< bud0et, si,ilar to its predecessors, explicitl+
re6uired prior consultation /ith the concerned Me,ber of Con0ress:' anent
certain aspects of pro7ect i,ple,entation.
!i0nificantl+, it /as durin0 this era that provisions /hich allo/ed for,al
participation of non-0overn,ental or0ani9ations %NB"& in the i,ple,entation of
0overn,ent pro7ects /ere introduced. n the !upple,ental Bud0et for -((:, /ith
respect to the appropriation for school buildin0s, NB"s /ere, b+ la/, encoura0ed
to participate. .or such purpose, the la/ stated that Athe a,ount of at least P-*(
Million of the P*(( Million allotted for the construction and co,pletion of school
buildin0s shall be ,ade available to NB"s includin0 the .ederation of .ilipino-
Chinese Cha,bers of Co,,erce and ndustr+, nc. for its A"peration Barrio
!choolA pro0ra,, /ith capabilit+ and proven trac$ records in the construction of
public school buildin0s x x x.A:- #he sa,e allocation /as ,ade available to
NB"s in the -(() and -((8 BAAs under the DepEd Bud0et.:4 Also, it /as in
-(() that the Bovern,ent Procure,ent Polic+ Board:5 %BPPB& issued
Resolution No. '---(() dated >une -8, -(() %BPPB Resolution '---(()&,
a,endin0 the i,ple,entin0 rules and re0ulations:* of RA 8'=5,:: the
Bovern,ent Procure,ent Refor, Act, to include, as a for, of ne0otiated
procure,ent,:) the procedure /hereb+ the Procurin0 Entit+:= %the i,ple,entin0
a0enc+& ,a+ enter into a ,e,orandu, of a0ree,ent /ith an NB", provided that
Aan appropriation la/ or ordinance ear,ar$s an a,ount to be specificall+
contracted out to NB"s.A:8
B. Present Ad,inistration %-('(-Present&.
Differin0 fro, previous PDA. Articles but si,ilar to the CD. Articles, the
-('')( PDA. Article included an express state,ent on lu,p-su, a,ounts
allocated for individual le0islators and the Gice-President2 Representatives /ere
0iven P)( Million each, bro$en do/n into P5( Million for Ahard pro7ectsA and
P4( Million for Asoft pro7ectsA3 /hile P-(( Million /as 0iven to each !enator as
/ell as the Gice-President, /ith a P'(( Million allocation each for AhardA and
Asoft pro7ects.A ;i$e/ise, a provision on reali0n,ent of funds /as included, but
/ith the 6ualification that it ,a+ be allo/ed onl+ once. #he sa,e provision also
allo/ed the !ecretaries of Education, <ealth, !ocial Delfare and Develop,ent,
nterior and ;ocal Bovern,ent, Environ,ent and Natural Resources, Ener0+, and
Public Dor$s and <i0h/a+s to reali0n PDA. .unds, /ith the further conditions
that2 %a& reali0n,ent is /ithin the sa,e i,ple,entin0 unit and sa,e pro7ect
cate0or+ as the ori0inal pro7ect, for infrastructure pro7ects3 %b& allot,ent released
has not +et been obli0ated for the ori0inal scope of /or$, and %c& the re6uest for
reali0n,ent is /ith the concurrence of the le0islator concerned.)'
n the -('-)- and -('4)4 PDA. Articles, it is stated that the Aidentification of
pro7ects andFor desi0nation of beneficiaries shall confor, to the priorit+ list,
standard or desi0n prepared b+ each i,ple,entin0 a0enc+ %priorit+ list
re6uire,ent& x x x.A <o/ever, as practiced, it /ould still be the individual
le0islator /ho /ould choose and identif+ the pro7ect fro, the said priorit+ list.)5
Provisions on le0islator allocations)* as /ell as fund reali0n,ent): /ere
included in the -('- and -('4 PDA. Articles3 but the allocation for the Gice-
President, /hich /as pe00ed at P-(( Million in the -('' BAA, had been deleted.
n addition, the -('4 PDA. Article no/ allo/ed ;B1s to be identified as
i,ple,entin0 a0encies if the+ have the technical capabilit+ to i,ple,ent the
pro7ects.)) ;e0islators /ere also allo/ed to identif+ pro0ra,sFpro7ects, except for
assistance to indi0ent patients and scholarships, outside of his le0islative district
provided that he secures the /ritten concurrence of the le0islator of the intended
outside-district, endorsed b+ the !pea$er of the <ouse.)= .inall+, an+ reali0n,ent
of PDA. funds, ,odification and revision of pro7ect identification, as /ell as
re6uests for release of funds, /ere all re6uired to be favorabl+ endorsed b+ the
<ouse Co,,ittee on Appropriations and the !enate Co,,ittee on .inance, as the
case ,a+ be.)8
. <istor+ of Presidential Por$ Barrel in the Philippines.
Dhile the ter, APor$ BarrelA has been t+picall+ associated /ith lu,p-su,, discretionar+
funds of Me,bers of Con0ress, the present cases and the recent controversies on the
,atter have, ho/ever, sho/n that the ter,Os usa0e has expanded to include certain funds
of the President such as the Mala,pa+a .unds and the Presidential !ocial .und.
"n the one hand, the Mala,pa+a .unds /as created as a special fund under !ection ==(
of Presidential Decree No. %PD& 8'(,=' issued b+ then President .erdinand E. Marcos
%Marcos& on March --, '8):. n enactin0 the said la/, Marcos reco0ni9ed the need to set
up a special fund to help intensif+, stren0then, and consolidate 0overn,ent efforts
relatin0 to the exploration, exploitation, and develop,ent of indi0enous ener0+ resources
vital to econo,ic 0ro/th.=- Due to the ener0+-related activities of the 0overn,ent in the
Mala,pa+a natural 0as field in Pala/an, or the AMala,pa+a Deep Dater Bas-to-Po/er
Pro7ectA,=4 the special fund created under PD 8'( has been currentl+ labeled as
Mala,pa+a .unds.
"n the other hand the Presidential !ocial .und /as created under !ection '-, #itle G=5
of PD '=:8,=* or the Charter of the Philippine A,use,ent and Ba,in0 Corporation
%PABC"R&. PD '=:8 /as si,ilarl+ issued b+ Marcos on >ul+ '', '8=4. More than t/o
%-& +ears after, he a,ended PD '=:8 and accordin0l+ issued PD '884 on "ctober 4',
'8=*,=: a,endin0 !ection '-=) of the for,er la/. As it stands, the Presidential !ocial
.und has been described as a special fundin0 facilit+ ,ana0ed and ad,inistered b+ the
Presidential Mana0e,ent !taff throu0h /hich the President provides direct assistance to
priorit+ pro0ra,s and pro7ects not funded under the re0ular bud0et. t is sourced fro, the
share of the 0overn,ent in the a00re0ate 0ross earnin0s of PABC"R.==
G. Controversies in the Philippines.
"ver the decades, Apor$A funds in the Philippines have increased tre,endousl+,=8 o/in0
in no s,all part to previous Presidents /ho reportedl+ used the APor$ BarrelA in order to
0ain con0ressional support.8( t /as in '88: /hen the first controvers+ surroundin0 the
APor$ BarrelA erupted. .or,er Mari$ina Cit+ Representative Ro,eo Canda9o %Canda9o&,
then an anon+,ous source, Able/ the lid on the hu0e su,s of 0overn,ent ,one+ that
re0ularl+ /ent into the poc$ets of le0islators in the for, of $ic$bac$s.A8' <e said that
Athe $ic$bac$s /ere O!"PO %standard operatin0 procedure& a,on0 le0islators and ran0ed
fro, a lo/ '8 percent to a hi0h *- percent of the cost of each pro7ect, /hich could be
an+thin0 fro, dred0in0, rip rappin0, sphaltin0, concretin0, and construction of school
buildin0s.A8- A"ther sources of $ic$bac$s that Canda9o identified /ere public funds
intended for ,edicines and textboo$s. A fe/ da+s later, the tale of the ,one+ trail
beca,e the banner stor+ of the Philippine Dail+ n6uirer issue of Au0ust '4, '88:,
acco,panied b+ an illustration of a roasted pi0.A84 A#he publication of the stories,
includin0 those about con0ressional initiative allocations of certain la/,a$ers, includin0
P4.: Billion for a Con0ress,an, spar$ed public outra0e.A85
#hereafter, or in -((5, several concerned citi9ens sou0ht the nullification of the PDA. as
enacted in the -((5 BAA for bein0 unconstitutional. 1nfortunatel+, for lac$ of Aan+
pertinent evidentiar+ support that ille0al ,isuse of PDA. in the for, of $ic$bac$s has
beco,e a co,,on exercise of unscrupulous Me,bers of Con0ress,A the petition /as
dis,issed.8*
Recentl+, or in >ul+ of the present +ear, the National Bureau of nvesti0ation %NB& be0an
its probe into alle0ations that Athe 0overn,ent has been defrauded of so,e P'( Billion
over the past '( +ears b+ a s+ndicate usin0 funds fro, the por$ barrel of la/,a$ers and
various 0overn,ent a0encies for scores of 0host pro7ects.A8: #he investi0ation /as
spa/ned b+ s/orn affidavits of six %:& /histle-blo/ers /ho declared that >;N
Corporation @ A>;NA standin0 for >anet ;i, Napoles %Napoles& @ had s/indled billions
of pesos fro, the public coffers for A0host pro7ectsA usin0 no fe/er than -( du,,+
NB"s for an entire decade. Dhile the NB"s /ere supposedl+ the ulti,ate recipients of
PDA. funds, the /histle-blo/ers declared that the ,one+ /as diverted into NapolesO
private accounts.8) #hus, after its investi0ation on the Napoles controvers+, cri,inal
co,plaints /ere filed before the "ffice of the ",buds,an, char0in0 five %*& la/,a$ers
for Plunder, and three %4& other la/,a$ers for Malversation, Direct Briber+, and
Giolation of the Anti-Braft and Corrupt Practices Act. Also reco,,ended to be char0ed
in the co,plaints are so,e of the la/,a$ersO chiefs -of-staff or representatives, the heads
and other officials of three %4& i,ple,entin0 a0encies, and the several presidents of the
NB"s set up b+ Napoles.8=
"n Au0ust ':, -('4, the Co,,ission on Audit %CoA& released the results of a three-+ear
audit investi0ation88 coverin0 the use of le0islatorsN PDA. fro, -(() to -((8, or durin0
the last three %4& +ears of the Arro+o ad,inistration. #he purpose of the audit /as to
deter,ine the propriet+ of releases of funds under PDA. and the Garious nfrastructures
includin0 ;ocal Pro7ects %G;P&'(( b+ the DBM, the application of these funds and the
i,ple,entation of pro7ects b+ the appropriate i,ple,entin0 a0encies and several
0overn,ent-o/ned-and-controlled corporations %B"CCs&.'(' #he total releases covered
b+ the audit a,ounted to P=.4)5 Billion in PDA. and P4-.::5 Billion in G;P,
representin0 *=H and 4-H, respectivel+, of the total PDA. and G;P releases that /ere
found to have been ,ade nation/ide durin0 the audit period.'(- Accordin0l+, the Co AOs
findin0s contained in its Report No. -('--(4 %CoA Report&, entitled APriorit+
Develop,ent Assistance .und %PDA.& and Garious nfrastructures includin0 ;ocal
Pro7ects %G;P&,A /ere ,ade public, the hi0hli0hts of /hich are as follo/s2'(4
V A,ounts released for pro7ects identified b+ a considerable nu,ber of le0islators
si0nificantl+ exceeded their respective allocations.
V A,ounts /ere released for pro7ects outside of le0islative districts of sponsorin0
,e,bers of the ;o/er <ouse.
V #otal G;P releases for the period exceeded the total a,ount appropriated under
the -(() to -((8 BAAs.
V nfrastructure pro7ects /ere constructed on private lots /ithout these havin0
been turned over to the 0overn,ent.
V !i0nificant a,ounts /ere released to i,ple,entin0 a0encies /ithout the latterOs
endorse,ent and /ithout considerin0 their ,andated functions, ad,inistrative
and technical capabilities to i,ple,ent pro7ects.
V ,ple,entation of ,ost livelihood pro7ects /as not underta$en b+ the
i,ple,entin0 a0encies the,selves but b+ NB"s endorsed b+ the proponent
le0islators to /hich the .unds /ere transferred.
V #he funds /ere transferred to the NB"s in spite of the absence of an+
appropriation la/ or ordinance.
V !election of the NB"s /ere not co,pliant /ith la/ and re0ulations.
V Ei0ht+-#/o %=-& NB"s entrusted /ith i,ple,entation of seven hundred
sevent+ t/o %))-& pro7ects a,ount to P:.'*: Billion /ere either found
6uestionable, or sub,itted 6uestionableFspurious docu,ents, or failed to li6uidate
in /hole or in part their utili9ation of the .unds.
V Procure,ent b+ the NB"s, as /ell as so,e i,ple,entin0 a0encies, of 0oods
and services reportedl+ used in the pro7ects /ere not co,pliant /ith la/.
As for the APresidential Por$ BarrelA, /histle-blo/ers alle0ed thatA at least P8(( Million
fro, ro+alties in the operation of the Mala,pa+a 0as pro7ect off Pala/an province
intended for a0rarian refor, beneficiaries has 0one into a du,,+ NB".A'(5 Accordin0
to incu,bent CoA Chairperson Maria Bracia Pulido #an %CoA Chairperson&, the CoA is,
as of this /ritin0, in the process of preparin0 Aone consolidated reportA on the
Mala,pa+a .unds.'(*
G. #he Procedural Antecedents.
!purred in lar0e part b+ the findin0s contained in the CoA Report and the Napoles
controvers+, several petitions /ere lod0ed before the Court si,ilarl+ see$in0 that the
APor$ Barrel !+ste,A be declared unconstitutional. #o recount, the relevant procedural
antecedents in these cases are as follo/s2
"n Au0ust -=, -('4, petitioner !a,son !. Alcantara %Alcantara&, President of the !ocial >ustice
!ociet+, filed a Petition for Prohibition of even date under Rule :* of the Rules of Court
%Alcantara Petition&, see$in0 that the APor$ Barrel !+ste,A be declared unconstitutional, and a
/rit of prohibition be issued per,anentl+ restrainin0 respondents .ran$lin M. Drilon and
.eliciano !. Bel,onte, >r., in their respective capacities as the incu,bent !enate President and
!pea$er of the <ouse of Representatives, fro, further ta$in0 an+ steps to enact le0islation
appropriatin0 funds for the APor$ Barrel !+ste,,A in /hatever for, and b+ /hatever na,e it
,a+ be called, and fro, approvin0 further releases pursuant thereto.'(: #he Alcantara Petition
/as doc$eted as B.R. No. -(=584.
"n !epte,ber 4, -('4, petitioners Breco Antonious Beda B. Bel0ica, >ose ;. Bon9ale9, Reuben
M. Abante, Wuintin Paredes !an Die0o %Bel0ica, et al.&, and >ose M. Gille0as, >r. %Gille0as& filed
an 1r0ent Petition .or Certiorari and Prohibition Dith Pra+er .or #he ,,ediate ssuance of
#e,porar+ Restrainin0 "rder %#R"& andFor Drit of Preli,inar+ n7unction dated Au0ust -),
-('4 under Rule :* of the Rules of Court %Bel0ica Petition&, see$in0 that the annual APor$ Barrel
!+ste,,A presentl+ e,bodied in the provisions of the BAA of -('4 /hich provided for the -('4
PDA., and the ExecutiveOs lu,p-su,, discretionar+ funds, such as the Mala,pa+a .unds and
the Presidential !ocial .und,'() be declared unconstitutional and null and void for bein0 acts
constitutin0 0rave abuse of discretion. Also, the+ pra+ that the Court issue a #R" a0ainst
respondents Pa6uito N. "choa, >r., .lorencio B. Abad %!ecretar+ Abad& and Rosalia G. De ;eon,
in their respective capacities as the incu,bent Executive !ecretar+, !ecretar+ of the Depart,ent
of Bud0et and Mana0e,ent %DBM&, and National #reasurer, or their a0ents, for the, to
i,,ediatel+ cease an+ expenditure under the aforesaid funds. .urther, the+ pra+ that the Court
order the fore0oin0 respondents to release to the CoA and to the public2 %a& Athe co,plete
scheduleFlist of le0islators /ho have availed of their PDA. and G;P fro, the +ears -((4 to
-('4, specif+in0 the use of the funds, the pro7ect or activit+ and the recipient entities or
individuals, and all pertinent data theretoA3 and %b& Athe use of the ExecutiveOs lu,p-su,,
discretionar+ funds, includin0 the proceeds fro, the x x x Mala,pa+a .unds and re,ittances
fro, the PABC"R x x x fro, -((4 to -('4, specif+in0 the x x x pro7ect or activit+ and the
recipient entities or individuals, and all pertinent data thereto.A'(= Also, the+ pra+ for the
Ainclusion in bud0etar+ deliberations /ith the Con0ress of all presentl+ off-bud0et, lu,p-su,,
discretionar+ funds includin0, but not li,ited to, proceeds fro, the Mala,pa+a .unds and
re,ittances fro, the PABC"R.A'(8 #he Bel0ica Petition /as doc$eted as B.R. No. -(=*::.''(
;astl+, on !epte,ber *, -('4, petitioner Pedrito M. Nepo,uceno %Nepo,uceno&, filed a Petition
dated Au0ust -4, -('- %Nepo,uceno Petition&, see$in0 that the PDA. be declared
unconstitutional, and a cease and desist order be issued restrainin0 President Beni0no !i,eon !.
A6uino %President A6uino& and !ecretar+ Abad fro, releasin0 such funds to Me,bers of
Con0ress and, instead, allo/ their release to fund priorit+ pro7ects identified and approved b+ the
;ocal Develop,ent Councils in consultation /ith the executive depart,ents, such as the DPD<,
the Depart,ent of #ouris,, the Depart,ent of <ealth, the Depart,ent of #ransportation, and
Co,,unication and the National Econo,ic Develop,ent Authorit+.''' #he Nepo,uceno
Petition /as doc$eted as 1DX-'58*'.''-
"n !epte,ber '(, -('4, the Court issued a Resolution of even date %a& consolidatin0 all cases3
%b& re6uirin0 public respondents to co,,ent on the consolidated petitions3 %c& issuin0 a #R"
%!epte,ber '(, -('4 #R"& en7oinin0 the DBM, National #reasurer, the Executive !ecretar+, or
an+ of the persons actin0 under their authorit+ fro, releasin0 %'& the re,ainin0 PDA. allocated
to Me,bers of Con0ress under the BAA of -('4, and %-& Mala,pa+a .unds under the phrase
Afor such other purposes as ,a+ be hereafter directed b+ the PresidentA pursuant to !ection = of
PD 8'( but not for the purpose of Afinancin0 ener0+ resource develop,ent and exploitation
pro0ra,s and pro7ects of the 0overn,ent under the sa,e provision3 and %d& settin0 the
consolidated cases for "ral Ar0u,ents on "ctober =, -('4.
"n !epte,ber -4, -('4, the "ffice of the !olicitor Beneral %"!B& filed a Consolidated
Co,,ent %Co,,ent& of even date before the Court, see$in0 the liftin0, or in the alternative, the
partial liftin0 /ith respect to educational and ,edical assistance purposes, of the CourtOs
!epte,ber '(, -('4 #R", and that the consolidated petitions be dis,issed for lac$ of ,erit.''4
"n !epte,ber -5, -('4, the Court issued a Resolution of even date directin0 petitioners to repl+
to the Co,,ent.
Petitioners, /ith the exception of Nepo,uceno, filed their respective replies to the Co,,ent2 %a&
on !epte,ber 4(, -('4, Gille0as filed a separate Repl+ dated !epte,ber -), -('4 %Gille0as
Repl+&3 %b& on "ctober ', -('4, Bel0ica, et al. filed a Repl+ dated !epte,ber 4(, -('4 %Bel0ica
Repl+&3 and %c& on "ctober -, -('4, Alcantara filed a Repl+ dated "ctober ', -('4.
"n "ctober ', -('4, the Court issued an Advisor+ providin0 for the 0uidelines to be observed b+
the parties for the "ral Ar0u,ents scheduled on "ctober =, -('4. n vie/ of the technicalit+ of
the issues ,aterial to the present cases, incu,bent !olicitor Beneral .rancis <. >ardele9a
%!olicitor Beneral& /as directed to brin0 /ith hi, durin0 the "ral Ar0u,ents representativeFs
fro, the DBM and Con0ress /ho /ould be able to co,petentl+ and co,pletel+ ans/er
6uestions related to, a,on0 others, the bud0etin0 process and its i,ple,entation. .urther, the
CoA Chairperson /as appointed as a,icus curiae and thereb+ re6uested to appear before the
Court durin0 the "ral Ar0u,ents.
"n "ctober = and '(, -('4, the "ral Ar0u,ents /ere conducted. #hereafter, the Court directed
the parties to sub,it their respective ,e,oranda /ithin a period of seven %)& da+s, or until
"ctober '), -('4, /hich the parties subse6uentl+ did.
#he ssues Before the Court
Based on the pleadin0s, and as refined durin0 the "ral Ar0u,ents, the follo/in0 are the ,ain
issues for the CourtOs resolution2
. Procedural ssues.
Dhether or not %a& the issues raised in the consolidated petitions involve an actual and 7usticiable
controvers+3 %b& the issues raised in the consolidated petitions are ,atters of polic+ not sub7ect to
7udicial revie/3 %c& petitioners have le0al standin0 to sue3 and %d& the CourtOs Decision dated
Au0ust '8, '885 in B.R. Nos. ''4'(*, ''4')5, ''4)::, and ''4===, entitled APhilippine
Constitution Association v. Enri6ue9A''5 %Philconsa& and Decision dated April -5, -('- in B.R.
No. ':58=), entitled A;a/+ers A0ainst Monopol+ and Povert+ v. !ecretar+ of Bud0et and
Mana0e,entA''* %;AMP& bar the re-liti0atio n of the issue of constitutionalit+ of the APor$
Barrel !+ste,A under the principles of res 7udicata and stare decisis.
. !ubstantive ssues on the ACon0ressional Por$ Barrel.A
Dhether or not the -('4 PDA. Article and all other Con0ressional Por$ Barrel ;a/s si,ilar
thereto are unconstitutional considerin0 that the+ violate the principles ofFconstitutional
provisions on %a& separation of po/ers3 %b& non-dele0abilit+ of le0islative po/er3 %c& chec$s and
balances3 %d& accountabilit+3 %e& political d+nasties3 and %f& local autono,+.
. !ubstantive ssues on the APresidential Por$ Barrel.A
Dhether or not the phrases %a& Aand for such other purposes as ,a+ be hereafter directed b+ the
PresidentA under !ection = of PD 8'(,'': relatin0 to the Mala,pa+a .unds, and %b& Ato finance
the priorit+ infrastructure develop,ent pro7ects and to finance the restoration of da,a0ed or
destro+ed facilities due to cala,ities, as ,a+ be directed and authori9ed b+ the "ffice of the
President of the PhilippinesA under !ection '- of PD '=:8, as a,ended b+ PD '884, relatin0 to
the Presidential !ocial .und, are unconstitutional insofar as the+ constitute undue dele0ations of
le0islative po/er.
#hese ,ain issues shall be resolved in the order that the+ have been stated. n addition, the Court
shall also tac$le certain ancillar+ issues as pro,pted b+ the present cases.
#he Court?s Rulin0
#he petitions are partl+ 0ranted.
. Procedural ssues.
#he prevailin0 rule in constitutional liti0ation is that no 6uestion involvin0 the constitutionalit+
or validit+ of a la/ or 0overn,ental act ,a+ be heard and decided b+ the Court unless there is
co,pliance /ith the le0al re6uisites for 7udicial in6uir+,'') na,el+2 %a& there ,ust be an actual
case or controvers+ callin0 for the exercise of 7udicial po/er3 %b& the person challen0in0 the act
,ust have the standin0 to 6uestion the validit+ of the sub7ect act or issuance3 %c& the 6uestion of
constitutionalit+ ,ust be raised at the earliest opportunit+ 3 and %d& the issue of constitutionalit+
,ust be the ver+ lis ,ota of the case.''= "f these re6uisites, case la/ states that the first t/o are
the ,ost i,portant''8 and, therefore, shall be discussed forth/ith.
A. Existence of an Actual Case or Controvers+.
B+ constitutional fiat, 7udicial po/er operates onl+ /hen there is an actual case or
controvers+.'-( #his is e,bodied in !ection ', Article G of the '8=) Constitution /hich
pertinentl+ states that A7udicial po/er includes the dut+ of the courts of 7ustice to settle actual
controversies involvin0 ri0hts /hich are le0all+ de,andable and enforceable x x x.A
>urisprudence provides that an actual case or controvers+ is one /hich Ainvolves a conflict of
le0al ri0hts, an assertion of opposite le0al clai,s, susceptible of 7udicial resolution as
distin0uished fro, a h+pothetical or abstract difference or dispute.'-' n other /ords, Athere
,ust be a contrariet+ of le0al ri0hts that can be interpreted and enforced on the basis of existin0
la/ and 7urisprudence.A'-- Related to the re6uire,ent of an actual case or controvers+ is the
re6uire,ent of Aripeness,A ,eanin0 that the 6uestions raised for constitutional scrutin+ are
alread+ ripe for ad7udication. AA 6uestion is ripe for ad7udication /hen the act bein0 challen0ed
has had a direct adverse effect on the individual challen0in0 it. t is a prere6uisite that so,ethin0
had then been acco,plished or perfor,ed b+ either branch before a court ,a+ co,e into the
picture, and the petitioner ,ust alle0e the existence of an i,,ediate or threatened in7ur+ to itself
as a result of the challen0ed action.A'-4 ADithal, courts /ill decline to pass upon constitutional
issues throu0h advisor+ opinions, bereft as the+ are of authorit+ to resolve h+pothetical or ,oot
6uestions.A'-5
Based on these principles, the Court finds that there exists an actual and 7usticiable controvers+
in these cases.
#he re6uire,ent of contrariet+ of le0al ri0hts is clearl+ satisfied b+ the anta0onistic positions of
the parties on the constitutionalit+ of the APor$ Barrel !+ste,.A Also, the 6uestions in these
consolidated cases are ripe for ad7udication since the challen0ed funds and the provisions
allo/in0 for their utili9ation @ such as the -('4 BAA for the PDA., PD 8'( for the Mala,pa+a
.unds and PD '=:8, as a,ended b+ PD '884, for the Presidential !ocial .und @ are currentl+
existin0 and operational3 hence, there exists an i,,ediate or threatened in7ur+ to petitioners as a
result of the unconstitutional use of these public funds.
As for the PDA., the Court ,ust dispel the notion that the issues related thereto had been
rendered ,oot and acade,ic b+ the refor,s underta$en b+ respondents. A case beco,es ,oot
/hen there is no ,ore actual controvers+ bet/een the parties or no useful purpose can be served
in passin0 upon the ,erits.'-* Differin0 fro, this description, the Court observes that
respondentsO proposed line-ite, bud0etin0 sche,e /ould not ter,inate the controvers+ nor
di,inish the useful purpose for its resolution since said refor, is 0eared to/ards the -('5
bud0et, and not the -('4 PDA. Article /hich, bein0 a distinct sub7ect ,atter, re,ains le0all+
effective and existin0. Neither /ill the PresidentOs declaration that he had alread+ Aabolished the
PDA.A render the issues on PDA. ,oot precisel+ because the Executive branch of 0overn,ent
has no constitutional authorit+ to nullif+ or annul its le0al existence. B+ constitutional desi0n, the
annul,ent or nullification of a la/ ,a+ be done either b+ Con0ress, throu0h the passa0e of a
repealin0 la/, or b+ the Court, throu0h a declaration of unconstitutionalit+. nstructive on this
point is the follo/in0 exchan0e bet/een Associate >ustice Antonio #. Carpio %>ustice Carpio&
and the !olicitor Beneral durin0 the "ral Ar0u,ents2'-:
>ustice Carpio2 #he President has ta$en an oath to faithfull+ execute the la/,'-) correctL
!olicitor Beneral >ardele9a2 Jes, Jour <onor.
>ustice Carpio2 And so the President cannot refuse to i,ple,ent the Beneral Appropriations Act,
correctL
!olicitor Beneral >ardele9a2 Dell, that is our ans/er, Jour <onor. n the case, for exa,ple of the
PDA., the President has a dut+ to execute the la/s but in the face of the outra0e over PDA., the
President /as sa+in0, A a, not sure that /ill continue the release of the soft pro7ects,A and that
started, Jour <onor. No/, /hether or not that Y %interrupted&
>ustice Carpio2 Jeah. /ill 0rant the President if there are ano,alies in the pro7ect, he has the
po/er to stop the releases in the ,eanti,e, to investi0ate, and that is !ection 4= of Chapter * of
Boo$ : of the Revised Ad,inistrative Code'-= x x x. !o at ,ost the President can suspend, no/
if the President believes that the PDA. is unconstitutional, can he 7ust refuse to i,ple,ent itL
!olicitor Beneral >ardele9a2 No, Jour <onor, as /e /ere tr+in0 to sa+ in the specific case of the
PDA. because of the CoA Report, because of the reported irre0ularities and this Court can ta$e
7udicial notice, even outside, outside of the C"A Report, +ou have the report of the /histle-
blo/ers, the President /as 7ust exercisin0 precisel+ the dut+ Y.
x x x x
>ustice Carpio2 Jes, and that is correct. JouOve seen the CoA Report, there are ano,alies, +ou
stop and investi0ate, and prosecute, he has done that. But, does that ,ean that PDA. has been
repealedL
!olicitor Beneral >ardele9a2 No, Jour <onor x x x.
x x x x
>ustice Carpio2 !o that PDA. can be le0all+ abolished onl+ in t/o %-& cases. Con0ress passes a
la/ to repeal it, or this Court declares it unconstitutional, correctL
!olictor Beneral >ardele9a2 Jes, Jour <onor.
>ustice Carpio2 #he President has no po/er to le0all+ abolish PDA.. %E,phases supplied&
Even on the assu,ption of ,ootness, 7urisprudence, nevertheless, dictates that Athe ,oot and
acade,icO principle is not a ,a0ical for,ula that can auto,aticall+ dissuade the Court in
resolvin0 a case.A #he Court /ill decide cases, other/ise ,oot, if2 first, there is a 0rave violation
of the Constitution3 second, the exceptional character of the situation and the para,ount public
interest is involved3 third, /hen the constitutional issue raised re6uires for,ulation of controllin0
principles to 0uide the bench, the bar, and the public3 and fourth, the case is capable of repetition
+et evadin0 revie/.'-8
#he applicabilit+ of the first exception is clear fro, the funda,ental posture of petitioners @ the+
essentiall+ alle0e 0rave violations of the Constitution /ith respect to, inter alia, the principles of
separation of po/ers, non-dele0abilit+ of le0islative po/er, chec$s and balances, accountabilit+
and local autono,+.
#he applicabilit+ of the second exception is also apparent fro, the nature of the interests
involved
@ the constitutionalit+ of the ver+ s+ste, /ithin /hich si0nificant a,ounts of public funds have
been and continue to be utili9ed and expended undoubtedl+ presents a situation of exceptional
character as /ell as a ,atter of para,ount public interest. #he present petitions, in fact, have
been lod0ed at a ti,e /hen the s+ste,Os fla/s have never before been ,a0nified. #o the CourtOs
,ind, the coalescence of the CoA Report, the accounts of nu,erous /histle-blo/ers, and the
0overn,entOs o/n reco0nition that refor,s are needed Ato address the reported abuses of the
PDA.A'4( de,onstrates a pri,a facie pattern of abuse /hich onl+ underscores the i,portance
of the ,atter. t is also b+ this findin0 that the Court finds petitionersO clai,s as not ,erel+
theori9ed, speculative or h+pothetical. "f note is the /ei0ht accorded b+ the Court to the
findin0s ,ade b+ the CoA /hich is the constitutionall+-,andated audit ar, of the 0overn,ent.
n Delos !antos v. CoA,'4' a recent case /herein the Court upheld the CoAOs disallo/ance of
irre0ularl+ disbursed PDA. funds, it /as e,phasi9ed that2
#he C"A is endo/ed /ith enou0h latitude to deter,ine, prevent, and disallo/ irre0ular,
unnecessar+, excessive, extrava0ant or unconscionable expenditures of 0overn,ent funds. t is
tas$ed to be vi0ilant and conscientious in safe0uardin0 the proper use of the 0overn,entNs, and
ulti,atel+ the peopleNs, propert+. #he exercise of its 0eneral audit po/er is a,on0 the
constitutional ,echanis,s that 0ives life to the chec$ and balance s+ste, inherent in our for, of
0overn,ent.
t is the 0eneral polic+ of the Court to sustain the decisions of ad,inistrative authorities,
especiall+ one /hich is constitutionall+-created, such as the CoA, not onl+ on the basis of the
doctrine of separation of po/ers but also for their presu,ed expertise in the la/s the+ are
entrusted to enforce. .indin0s of ad,inistrative a0encies are accorded not onl+ respect but also
finalit+ /hen the decision and order are not tainted /ith unfairness or arbitrariness that /ould
a,ount to 0rave abuse of discretion. t is onl+ /hen the CoA has acted /ithout or in excess of
7urisdiction, or /ith 0rave abuse of discretion a,ountin0 to lac$ or excess of 7urisdiction, that
this Court entertains a petition 6uestionin0 its rulin0s. x x x. %E,phases supplied&
#hus, if onl+ for the purpose of validatin0 the existence of an actual and 7usticiable controvers+
in these cases, the Court dee,s the findin0s under the CoA Report to be sufficient.
#he Court also finds the third exception to be applicable lar0el+ due to the practical need for a
definitive rulin0 on the s+ste,Os constitutionalit+. As disclosed durin0 the "ral Ar0u,ents, the
CoA Chairperson esti,ates that thousands of notices of disallo/ances /ill be issued b+ her
office in connection /ith the findin0s ,ade in the CoA Report. n this relation, Associate >ustice
Marvic Mario Gictor .. ;eonen %>ustice ;eonen& pointed out that all of these /ould eventuall+
find their /a+ to the courts.'4- Accordin0l+, there is a co,pellin0 need to for,ulate controllin0
principles relative to the issues raised herein in order to 0uide the bench, the bar, and the public,
not 7ust for the expeditious resolution of the anticipated disallo/ance cases, but ,ore
i,portantl+, so that the 0overn,ent ,a+ be 0uided on ho/ public funds should be utili9ed in
accordance /ith constitutional principles.
.inall+, the application of the fourth exception is called for b+ the reco0nition that the
preparation and passa0e of the national bud0et is, b+ constitutional i,pri,atur, an affair of
annual occurrence.'44 #he relevance of the issues before the Court does not cease /ith the
passa0e of a APDA. -free bud0et for -('5.A'45 #he evolution of the APor$ Barrel !+ste,,A b+ its
,ultifarious iterations throu0hout the course of histor+, lends a se,blance of truth to petitionersO
clai, that Athe sa,e do0 /ill 7ust resurface /earin0 a different collar.A'4* n !anla$as v.
Executive !ecretar+,'4: the 0overn,ent had alread+ bac$trac$ed on a previous course of action
+et the Court used the Acapable of repetition but evadin0 revie/A exception in order Ato prevent
si,ilar 6uestions fro, re- e,er0in0.A'4) #he situation si,ilarl+ holds true to these cases.
ndeed, the ,+riad of issues underl+in0 the ,anner in /hich certain public funds are spent, if not
resolved at this ,ost opportune ti,e, are capable of repetition and hence, ,ust not evade 7udicial
revie/.
B. Matters of Polic+2 the Political Wuestion Doctrine.
#he Ali,itation on the po/er of 7udicial revie/ to actual cases and controversies carries the
assurance that Athe courts /ill not intrude into areas co,,itted to the other branches of
0overn,ent.A'4= Essentiall+, the fore0oin0 li,itation is a restate,ent of the political 6uestion
doctrine /hich, under the classic for,ulation of Ba$er v. Carr,'48 applies /hen there is found,
a,on0 others, Aa textuall+ de,onstrable constitutional co,,it,ent of the issue to a coordinate
political depart,ent,A Aa lac$ of 7udiciall+ discoverable and ,ana0eable standards for resolvin0
itA or Athe i,possibilit+ of decidin0 /ithout an initial polic+ deter,ination of a $ind clearl+ for
non- 7udicial discretion.A Cast a0ainst this li0ht, respondents sub,it that the Athe political
branches are in the best position not onl+ to perfor, bud0et-related refor,s but also to do the,
in response to the specific de,ands of their constituentsA and, as such, Aur0e the Court not to
i,pose a solution at this sta0e.A'5(
#he Court ,ust den+ respondentsO sub,ission.
!uffice it to state that the issues raised before the Court do not present political but le0al
6uestions /hich are /ithin its province to resolve. A political 6uestion refers to Athose 6uestions
/hich, under the Constitution, are to be decided b+ the people in their soverei0n capacit+, or in
re0ard to /hich full discretionar+ authorit+ has been dele0ated to the ;e0islature or executive
branch of the Bovern,ent. t is concerned /ith issues dependent upon the /isdo,, not le0alit+,
of a particular ,easure.A'5' #he intrinsic constitutionalit+ of the APor$ Barrel !+ste,A is not an
issue dependent upon the /isdo, of the political branches of 0overn,ent but rather a le0al one
/hich the Constitution itself has co,,anded the Court to act upon. !crutini9in0 the contours of
the s+ste, alon0 constitutional lines is a tas$ that the political branches of 0overn,ent are
incapable of renderin0 precisel+ because it is an exercise of 7udicial po/er. More i,portantl+, the
present Constitution has not onl+ vested the >udiciar+ the ri0ht to exercise 7udicial po/er but
essentiall+ ,a$es it a dut+ to proceed there/ith. !ection ', Article G of the '8=) Constitution
cannot be an+ clearer2 A#he 7udicial po/er shall be vested in one !upre,e Court and in such
lo/er courts as ,a+ be established b+ la/. t includes the dut+ of the courts of 7ustice to settle
actual controversies involvin0 ri0hts /hich are le0all+ de,andable and enforceable, and to
deter,ine /hether or not there has been a 0rave abuse of discretion a,ountin0 to lac$ or excess
of 7urisdiction on the part of an+ branch or instru,entalit+ of the Bovern,ent.A n Estrada v.
Desierto,'5- the expanded concept of 7udicial po/er under the '8=) Constitution and its effect
on the political 6uestion doctrine /as explained as follo/s2'54
#o a 0reat de0ree, the '8=) Constitution has narro/ed the reach of the political 6uestion doctrine
/hen it expanded the po/er of 7udicial revie/ of this court not onl+ to settle actual controversies
involvin0 ri0hts /hich are le0all+ de,andable and enforceable but also to deter,ine /hether or
not there has been a 0rave abuse of discretion a,ountin0 to lac$ or excess of 7urisdiction on the
part of an+ branch or instru,entalit+ of 0overn,ent. <eretofore, the 7udiciar+ has focused on the
Athou shalt notNsA of the Constitution directed a0ainst the exercise of its 7urisdiction. Dith the
ne/ provision, ho/ever, courts are 0iven a 0reater prero0ative to deter,ine /hat it can do to
prevent 0rave abuse of discretion a,ountin0 to lac$ or excess of 7urisdiction on the part of an+
branch or instru,entalit+ of 0overn,ent. Clearl+, the ne/ provision did not 7ust 0rant the Court
po/er of doin0 nothin0. x x x %E,phases supplied&
t ,ust also be borne in ,ind that T /hen the 7udiciar+ ,ediates to allocate constitutional
boundaries, it does not assert an+ superiorit+ over the other depart,ents3 does not in realit+
nullif+ or invalidate an act of the le0islature or the executive, but onl+ asserts the sole,n and
sacred obli0ation assi0ned to it b+ the Constitution.A'55 #o a 0reat extent, the Court is laudabl+
co0ni9ant of the refor,s underta$en b+ its co-e6ual branches of 0overn,ent. But it is b+
constitutional force that the Court ,ust faithfull+ perfor, its dut+. 1lti,atel+, it is the CourtOs
avo/ed intention that a resolution of these cases /ould not arrest or in an+ ,anner i,pede the
endeavors of the t/o other branches but, in fact, help ensure that the pillars of chan0e are erected
on fir, constitutional 0rounds. After all, it is in the best interest of the people that each 0reat
branch of 0overn,ent, /ithin its o/n sphere, contributes its share to/ards achievin0 a holistic
and 0enuine solution to the proble,s of societ+. .or all these reasons, the Court cannot heed
respondentsO plea for 7udicial restraint.
C. ;ocus !tandi.
A#he 0ist of the 6uestion of standin0 is /hether a part+ alle0es such personal sta$e in the
outco,e of the controvers+ as to assure that concrete adverseness /hich sharpens the
presentation of issues upon /hich the court depends for illu,ination of difficult constitutional
6uestions. 1nless a person is in7uriousl+ affected in an+ of his constitutional ri0hts b+ the
operation of statute or ordinance, he has no standin0.A'5*
Petitioners have co,e before the Court in their respective capacities as citi9en-taxpa+ers and
accordin0l+, assert that the+ Adutifull+ contribute to the coffers of the National #reasur+.A'5:
Clearl+, as taxpa+ers, the+ possess the re6uisite standin0 to 6uestion the validit+ of the existin0
APor$ Barrel !+ste,A under /hich the taxes the+ pa+ have been and continue to be utili9ed. t is
undeniable that petitioners, as taxpa+ers, are bound to suffer fro, the unconstitutional usa0e of
public funds, if the Court so rules. nvariabl+, taxpa+ers have been allo/ed to sue /here there is
a clai, that public funds are ille0all+ disbursed or that public ,one+ is bein0 deflected to an+
i,proper purpose, or that public funds are /asted throu0h the enforce,ent of an invalid or
unconstitutional la/,'5) as in these cases.
Moreover, as citi9ens, petitioners have e6uall+ fulfilled the standin0 re6uire,ent 0iven that the
issues the+ have raised ,a+ be classified as ,atters Aof transcendental i,portance, of
overreachin0 si0nificance to societ+, or of para,ount public interest.A'5= #he CoA
ChairpersonOs state,ent durin0 the "ral Ar0u,ents that the present controvers+ involves Anot
,erel+ a s+ste,s failureA but a Aco,plete brea$do/n of controlsA'58 a,plifies, in addition to
the ,atters above-discussed, the seriousness of the issues involved herein. ndeed, of 0reater
i,port than the da,a0e caused b+ the ille0al expenditure of public funds is the ,ortal /ound
inflicted upon the funda,ental la/ b+ the enforce,ent of an invalid statute.'*( All told,
petitioners have sufficient locus standi to file the instant cases.
D. Res >udicata and !tare Decisis.
Res 7udicata %/hich ,eans a A,atter ad7ud0edA& and stare decisis non 6uieta et ,overe %or
si,pl+, stare decisis /hich ,eans Afollo/ past precedents and do not disturb /hat has been
settledA& are 0eneral procedural la/ principles /hich both deal /ith the effects of previous but
factuall+ si,ilar dispositions to subse6uent cases. .or the cases at bar, the Court exa,ines the
applicabilit+ of these principles in relation to its prior rulin0s in Philconsa and ;AMP.
#he focal point of res 7udicata is the 7ud0,ent. #he principle states that a 7ud0,ent on the ,erits
in a previous case rendered b+ a court of co,petent 7urisdiction /ould bind a subse6uent case if,
bet/een the first and second actions, there exists an identit+ of parties, of sub7ect ,atter, and of
causes of action.'*' #his re6uired identit+ is not, ho/ever, attendant hereto since Philconsa and
;AMP, respectivel+ involved constitutional challen0es a0ainst the '885 CD. Article and -((5
PDA. Article, /hereas the cases at bar call for a broader constitutional scrutin+ of the entire
APor$ Barrel !+ste,.A Also, the rulin0 in ;AMP is essentiall+ a dis,issal based on a procedural
technicalit+ @ and, thus, hardl+ a 7ud0,ent on the ,erits @ in that petitioners therein failed to
present an+ Aconvincin0 proof x x x sho/in0 that, indeed, there /ere direct releases of funds to
the Me,bers of Con0ress, /ho actuall+ spend the, accordin0 to their sole discretionA or
Apertinent evidentiar+ support to de,onstrate the ille0al ,isuse of PDA. in the for, of
$ic$bac$s and has beco,e a co,,on exercise of unscrupulous Me,bers of Con0ress.A As such,
the Court up held, in vie/ of the presu,ption of constitutionalit+ accorded to ever+ la/, the
-((5 PDA. Article, and sa/ Ano need to revie/ or reverse the standin0 pronounce,ents in the
said case.A <ence, for the fore0oin0 reasons, the res 7udicata principle, insofar as the Philconsa
and ;AMP cases are concerned, cannot appl+.
"n the other hand, the focal point of stare decisis is the doctrine created. #he principle,
entrenched under Article ='*- of the Civil Code, evo$es the 0eneral rule that, for the sa$e of
certaint+, a conclusion reached in one case should be doctrinall+ applied to those that follo/ if
the facts are substantiall+ the sa,e, even thou0h the parties ,a+ be different. t proceeds fro,
the first principle of 7ustice that, absent an+ po/erful countervailin0 considerations, li$e cases
ou0ht to be decided ali$e. #hus, /here the sa,e 6uestions relatin0 to the sa,e event have been
put for/ard b+ the parties si,ilarl+ situated as in a previous case liti0ated and decided b+ a
co,petent court, the rule of stare decisis is a bar to an+ atte,pt to re-liti0ate the sa,e issue.'*4
Philconsa /as the first case /here a constitutional challen0e a0ainst a Por$ Barrel provision, i.e.,
the '885 CD. Article, /as resolved b+ the Court. #o properl+ understand its context, petitionersO
posturin0 /as that Athe po/er 0iven to the Me,bers of Con0ress to propose and identif+ pro7ects
and activities to be funded b+ the CD. is an encroach,ent b+ the le0islature on executive po/er,
since said po/er in an appropriation act is in i,ple,entation of the la/A and that Athe proposal
and identification of the pro7ects do not involve the ,a$in0 of la/s or the repeal and a,end,ent
thereof, the onl+ function 0iven to the Con0ress b+ the Constitution.A'*5 n deference to the
fore0oin0 sub,issions, the Court reached the follo/in0 ,ain conclusions2 one, under the
Constitution, the po/er of appropriation, or the Apo/er of the purse,A belon0s to Con0ress3 t/o,
the po/er of appropriation carries /ith it the po/er to specif+ the pro7ect or activit+ to be funded
under the appropriation la/ and it can be detailed and as broad as Con0ress /ants it to be3 and,
three, the proposals and identifications ,ade b+ Me,bers of Con0ress are ,erel+
reco,,endator+. At once, it is apparent that the Philconsa resolution /as a li,ited response to a
separation of po/ers proble,, specificall+ on the propriet+ of conferrin0 post-enact,ent
identification authorit+ to Me,bers of Con0ress. "n the contrar+, the present cases call for a
,ore holistic exa,ination of %a& the inter-relation bet/een the CD. and PDA. Articles /ith
each other, for,ative as the+ are of the entire APor$ Barrel !+ste,A as /ell as %b& the intra-
relation of post-enact,ent ,easures contained /ithin a particular CD. or PDA. Article,
includin0 not onl+ those related to the area of pro7ect identification but also to the areas of fund
release and reali0n,ent. #he co,plexit+ of the issues and the broader le0al anal+ses herein
/arranted ,a+ be, therefore, considered as a po/erful countervailin0 reason a0ainst a /holesale
application of the stare decisis principle.
n addition, the Court observes that the Philconsa rulin0 /as actuall+ riddled /ith inherent
constitutional inconsistencies /hich si,ilarl+ countervail a0ainst a full resort to stare decisis. As
,a+ be deduced fro, the ,ain conclusions of the case, PhilconsaOs funda,ental pre,ise in
allo/in0 Me,bers of Con0ress to propose and identif+ of pro7ects /ould be that the said
identification authorit+ is but an aspect of the po/er of appropriation /hich has been
constitutionall+ lod0ed in Con0ress. .ro, this pre,ise, the contradictions ,a+ be easil+ seen. f
the authorit+ to identif+ pro7ects is an aspect of appropriation and the po/er of appropriation is a
for, of le0islative po/er thereb+ lod0ed in Con0ress, then it follo/s that2 %a& it is Con0ress
/hich should exercise such authorit+, and not its individual Me,bers3 %b& such authorit+ ,ust be
exercised /ithin the prescribed procedure of la/ passa0e and, hence, should not be exercised
after the BAA has alread+ been passed3 and %c& such authorit+, as e,bodied in the BAA, has the
force of la/ and, hence, cannot be ,erel+ reco,,endator+. >ustice Gitu0Os Concurrin0 "pinion
in the sa,e case su,s up the Philconsa 6uandar+ in this /ise2 ANeither /ould it be ob7ectionable
for Con0ress, b+ la/, to appropriate funds for such specific pro7ects as it ,a+ be ,inded3 to 0ive
that authorit+, ho/ever, to the individual ,e,bers of Con0ress in /hatever 0uise, a, afraid,
/ould be constitutionall+ i,per,issible.A As the Court no/ lar0el+ benefits fro, hindsi0ht and
current findin0s on the ,atter, a,on0 others, the CoA Report, the Court ,ust partiall+ abandon
its previous rulin0 in Philconsa insofar as it validated the post-enact,ent identification authorit+
of Me,bers of Con0ress on the 0uise that the sa,e /as ,erel+ reco,,endator+. #his postulate
raises serious constitutional inconsistencies /hich cannot be si,pl+ excused on the 0round that
such ,echanis, is Ai,a0inative as it is innovative.A Moreover, it ,ust be pointed out that the
recent case of Aba$ada Buro Part+ ;ist v. Purisi,a'** %Aba$ada& has effectivel+ overturned
PhilconsaOs allo/ance of post-enact,ent le0islator participation in vie/ of the separation of
po/ers principle. #hese constitutional inconsistencies and the Aba$ada rule /ill be discussed in
0reater detail in the ensuin0 section of this Decision.
As for ;AMP, suffice it to restate that the said case /as dis,issed on a procedural technicalit+
and, hence, has not set an+ controllin0 doctrine susceptible of current application to the
substantive issues in these cases. n fine, stare decisis /ould not appl+.
. !ubstantive ssues.
A. Definition of #er,s.
Before the Court proceeds to resolve the substantive issues of these cases, it ,ust first define the
ter,s APor$ Barrel !+ste,,A ACon0ressional Por$ Barrel,A and APresidential Por$ BarrelA as the+
are essential to the ensuin0 discourse.
Petitioners define the ter, APor$ Barrel !+ste,A as the Acollusion bet/een the ;e0islative and
Executive branches of 0overn,ent to accu,ulate lu,p-su, public funds in their offices /ith
unchec$ed discretionar+ po/ers to deter,ine its distribution as political lar0esse.A'*: #he+
assert that the follo/in0 ele,ents ,a$e up the Por$ Barrel !+ste,2 %a& lu,p-su, funds are
allocated throu0h the appropriations process to an individual officer3 %b& the officer is 0iven sole
and broad discretion in deter,inin0 ho/ the funds /ill be used or expended3 %c& the 0uidelines
on ho/ to spend or use the funds in the appropriation are either va0ue, overbroad or inexistent3
and %d& pro7ects funded are intended to benefit a definite constituenc+ in a particular part of the
countr+ and to help the political careers of the disbursin0 official b+ +ieldin0 rich patrona0e
benefits.'*) #he+ further state that the Por$ Barrel !+ste, is co,prised of t/o %-& $inds of
discretionar+ public funds2 first, the Con0ressional %or ;e0islative& Por$ Barrel, currentl+ $no/n
as the PDA.3'*= and, second, the Presidential %or Executive& Por$ Barrel, specificall+, the
Mala,pa+a .unds under PD 8'( and the Presidential !ocial .und under PD '=:8, as a,ended
b+ PD '884.'*8
Considerin0 petitionersO sub,ission and in reference to its local concept and le0al histor+, the
Court defines the Por$ Barrel !+ste, as the collective bod+ of rules and practices that 0overn the
,anner b+ /hich lu,p-su,, discretionar+ funds, pri,aril+ intended for local pro7ects, are
utili9ed throu0h the respective participations of the ;e0islative and Executive branches of
0overn,ent, includin0 its ,e,bers. #he Por$ Barrel !+ste, involves t/o %-& $inds of lu,p-su,
discretionar+ funds2
.irst, there is the Con0ressional Por$ Barrel /hich is herein defined as a $ind of lu,p-su,,
discretionar+ fund /herein le0islators, either individuall+ or collectivel+ or0ani9ed into
co,,ittees, are able to effectivel+ control certain aspects of the fund?s utili9ation throu0h
various post-enact,ent ,easures andFor practices. n particular, petitioners consider the PDA.,
as it appears under the -('4 BAA, as Con0ressional Por$ Barrel since it is, inter alia, a post-
enact,ent ,easure that allo/s individual le0islators to /ield a collective po/er3':( and
!econd, there is the Presidential Por$ Barrel /hich is herein defined as a $ind of lu,p-su,,
discretionar+ fund /hich allo/s the President to deter,ine the ,anner of its utili9ation. .or
reasons earlier stated,':' the Court shall deli,it the use of such ter, to refer onl+ to the
Mala,pa+a .unds and the Presidential !ocial .und.
Dith these definitions in ,ind, the Court shall no/ proceed to discuss the substantive issues of
these cases.
B. !ubstantive ssues on the Con0ressional Por$ Barrel.
'. !eparation of Po/ers.
a. !tate,ent of Principle.
#he principle of separation of po/ers refers to the constitutional de,arcation of the three
funda,ental po/ers of 0overn,ent. n the celebrated /ords of >ustice ;aurel in An0ara v.
Electoral Co,,ission,':- it ,eans that the AConstitution has bloc$ed out /ith deft stro$es and
in bold lines, allot,ent of po/er to the executive, the le0islative and the 7udicial depart,ents of
the 0overn,ent.A':4 #o the le0islative branch of 0overn,ent, throu0h Con0ress,':5 belon0s the
po/er to ,a$e la/s3 to the executive branch of 0overn,ent, throu0h the President,':* belon0s
the po/er to enforce la/s3 and to the 7udicial branch of 0overn,ent, throu0h the Court,'::
belon0s the po/er to interpret la/s. Because the three 0reat po/ers have been, b+ constitutional
desi0n, ordained in this respect, Aeach depart,ent of the 0overn,ent has exclusive co0ni9ance of
,atters /ithin its 7urisdiction, and is supre,e /ithin its o/n sphere.A':) #hus, Athe le0islature
has no authorit+ to execute or construe the la/, the executive has no authorit+ to ,a$e or
construe the la/, and the 7udiciar+ has no po/er to ,a$e or execute the la/.A':= #he principle
of separation of po/ers and its concepts of autono,+ and independence ste, fro, the notion
that the po/ers of 0overn,ent ,ust be divided to avoid concentration of these po/ers in an+ one
branch3 the division, it is hoped, /ould avoid an+ sin0le branch fro, lordin0 its po/er over the
other branches or the citi9enr+.':8 #o achieve this purpose, the divided po/er ,ust be /ielded
b+ co-e6ual branches of 0overn,ent that are e6uall+ capable of independent action in exercisin0
their respective ,andates. ;ac$ of independence /ould result in the inabilit+ of one branch of
0overn,ent to chec$ the arbitrar+ or self-interest assertions of another or others.')(
Broadl+ spea$in0, there is a violation of the separation of po/ers principle /hen one branch of
0overn,ent undul+ encroaches on the do,ain of another. 1! !upre,e Court decisions instruct
that the principle of separation of po/ers ,a+ be violated in t/o %-& /a+s2 firstl+, Aone branch
,a+ interfere i,per,issibl+ /ith the other?s perfor,ance of its constitutionall+ assi0ned
functionA3')' and Aalternativel+, the doctrine ,a+ be violated /hen one branch assu,es a
function that ,ore properl+ is entrusted to another.A')- n other /ords, there is a violation of the
principle /hen there is i,per,issible %a& interference /ith andFor %b& assu,ption of another
depart,entOs functions.
#he enforce,ent of the national bud0et, as pri,aril+ contained in the BAA, is indisputabl+ a
function both constitutionall+ assi0ned and properl+ entrusted to the Executive branch of
0overn,ent. n Buin0ona, >r. v. <on. Cara0ue')4 %Buin0ona, >r.&, the Court explained that the
phase of bud0et execution Acovers the various operational aspects of bud0etin0A and accordin0l+
includes Athe evaluation of /or$ and financial plans for individual activities,A the Are0ulation and
release of fundsA as /ell as all Aother related activitiesA that co,prise the bud0et execution
c+cle.')5 #his is rooted in the principle that the allocation of po/er in the three principal
branches of 0overn,ent is a 0rant of all po/ers inherent in the,.')* #hus, unless the
Constitution provides other/ise, the Executive depart,ent should exclusivel+ exercise all roles
and prero0atives /hich 0o into the i,ple,entation of the national bud0et as provided under the
BAA as /ell as an+ other appropriation la/.
n vie/ of the fore0oin0, the ;e0islative branch of 0overn,ent, ,uch ,ore an+ of its ,e,bers,
should not cross over the field of i,ple,entin0 the national bud0et since, as earlier stated, the
sa,e is properl+ the do,ain of the Executive. A0ain, in Buin0ona, >r., the Court stated that
ACon0ress enters the picture /hen it deliberates or acts on the bud0et proposals of the President.
#hereafter, Con0ress, Ain the exercise of its o/n 7ud0,ent and /isdo,, for,ulates an
appropriation act precisel+ follo/in0 the process established b+ the Constitution, /hich specifies
that no ,one+ ,a+ be paid fro, the #reasur+ except in accordance /ith an appropriation ,ade
b+ la/.A 1pon approval and passa0e of the BAA, Con0ressO la/ -,a$in0 role necessaril+ co,es
to an end and fro, there the ExecutiveOs role of i,ple,entin0 the national bud0et be0ins. !o as
not to blur the constitutional boundaries bet/een the,, Con0ress ,ust Anot concern it self /ith
details for i,ple,entation b+ the Executive.A'):
#he fore0oin0 cardinal postulates /ere definitivel+ enunciated in Aba$ada /here the Court held
that Afro, the ,o,ent the la/ beco,es effective, an+ provision of la/ that e,po/ers Con0ress
or an+ of its ,e,bers to pla+ an+ role in the i,ple,entation or enforce,ent of the la/ violates
the principle of separation of po/ers and is thus unconstitutional.A')) t ,ust be clarified,
ho/ever, that since the restriction onl+ pertains to Aan+ role in the i,ple,entation or
enforce,ent of the la/,A Con0ress ,a+ still exercise its oversi0ht function /hich is a ,echanis,
of chec$s and balances that the Constitution itself allo/s. But it ,ust be ,ade clear that
Con0ressO role ,ust be confined to ,ere oversi0ht. An+ post-enact,ent-,easure allo/in0
le0islator participation be+ond oversi0ht is bereft of an+ constitutional basis and hence,
tanta,ount to i,per,issible interference andFor assu,ption of executive functions. As the Court
ruled in Aba$ada2')=
An+ post-enact,ent con0ressional ,easure x x x should be li,ited to scrutin+ and
investi0ation.1wphi1 n particular, con0ressional oversi0ht ,ust be confined to the follo/in02
%'& scrutin+ based pri,aril+ on Con0ressO po/er of appropriation and the bud0et hearin0s
conducted in connection /ith it, its po/er to as$ heads of depart,ents to appear before
and be heard b+ either of its <ouses on an+ ,atter pertainin0 to their depart,ents and its
po/er of confir,ation3 and
%-& investi0ation and ,onitorin0 of the i,ple,entation of la/s pursuant to the po/er of
Con0ress to conduct in6uiries in aid of le0islation.
An+ action or step be+ond that /ill under,ine the separation of po/ers 0uaranteed b+ the
Constitution. %E,phases supplied&
b. Application.
n these cases, petitioners sub,it that the Con0ressional Por$ Barrel @ a,on0 others, the -('4
PDA. Article @ A/rec$s the assi0n,ent of responsibilities bet/een the political branchesA as it is
desi0ned to allo/ individual le0islators to interfere A/a+ past the ti,e it should have ceasedA or,
particularl+, Aafter the BAA is passed.A')8 #he+ state that the findin0s and reco,,endations in
the CoA Report provide Aan illustration of ho/ absolute and definitive the po/er of le0islators
/ield over pro7ect i,ple,entation in co,plete violation of the constitutional principle of
separation of po/ers.A'=( .urther, the+ point out that the Court in the Philconsa case onl+
allo/ed the CD. to exist on the condition that individual le0islators li,ited their role to
reco,,endin0 pro7ects and not if the+ actuall+ dictate their i,ple,entation.'='
.or their part, respondents counter that the separations of po/ers principle has not been violated
since the President ,aintains Aulti,ate authorit+ to control the execution of the BAA and that
he Aretains the final discretion to re7ectA the le0islatorsO proposals.'=- #he+ ,aintain that the
Court, in Philconsa, Aupheld the constitutionalit+ of the po/er of ,e,bers of Con0ress to
propose and identif+ pro7ects so lon0 as such proposal and identification are
reco,,endator+.A'=4 As such, the+ clai, that Aever+thin0 in the !pecial Provisions Pof the -('4
PDA. Article follo/s the Philconsa fra,e/or$, and hence, re,ains constitutional.A'=5
#he Court rules in favor of petitioners.
As ,a+ be observed fro, its le0al histor+, the definin0 feature of all for,s of Con0ressional
Por$ Barrel /ould be the authorit+ of le0islators to participate in the post-enact,ent phases of
pro7ect i,ple,entation.
At its core, le0islators @ ,a+ it be throu0h pro7ect lists,'=* prior consultations'=: or pro0ra,
,enus'=) @ have been consistentl+ accorded post-enact,ent authorit+ to identif+ the pro7ects
the+ desire to be funded throu0h various Con0ressional Por$ Barrel allocations. 1nder the -('4
PDA. Article, the statutor+ authorit+ of le0islators to identif+ pro7ects post-BAA ,a+ be
construed fro, the i,port of !pecial Provisions ' to 4 as /ell as the second para0raph of !pecial
Provision 5. #o elucidate, !pecial Provision ' e,bodies the pro0ra, ,enu feature /hich, as
evinced fro, past PDA. Articles, allo/s individual le0islators to identif+ PDA. pro7ects for as
lon0 as the identified pro7ect falls under a 0eneral pro0ra, listed in the said ,enu. Relatedl+,
!pecial Provision - provides that the i,ple,entin0 a0encies shall, /ithin 8( da+s fro, the BAA
is passed, sub,it to Con0ress a ,ore detailed priorit+ list, standard or desi0n prepared and
sub,itted b+ i,ple,entin0 a0encies fro, /hich the le0islator ,a+ ,a$e his choice. #he sa,e
provision further authori9es le0islators to identif+ PDA. pro7ects outside his district for as lon0
as the representative of the district concerned concurs in /ritin0. Mean/hile, !pecial Provision 4
clarifies that PDA. pro7ects refer to Apro7ects to be identified b+ le0islatorsA'== and thereunder
provides the allocation li,it for the total a,ount of pro7ects identified b+ each le0islator. .inall+,
para0raph - of !pecial Provision 5 re6uires that an+ ,odification and revision of the pro7ect
identification Ashall be sub,itted to the <ouse Co,,ittee on Appropriations and the !enate
Co,,ittee on .inance for favorable endorse,ent to the DBM or the i,ple,entin0 a0enc+, as
the case ,a+ be.A .ro, the fore0oin0 special provisions, it cannot be seriousl+ doubted that
le0islators have been accorded post-enact,ent authorit+ to identif+ PDA. pro7ects.
Aside fro, the area of pro7ect identification, le0islators have also been accorded post-enact,ent
authorit+ in the areas of fund release and reali0n,ent. 1nder the -('4 PDA. Article, the
statutor+ authorit+ of le0islators to participate in the area of fund release throu0h con0ressional
co,,ittees is contained in !pecial Provision * /hich explicitl+ states that Aall re6uest for release
of funds shall be supported b+ the docu,ents prescribed under !pecial Provision No. ' and
favorabl+ endorsed b+ <ouse Co,,ittee on Appropriations and the !enate Co,,ittee on
.inance, as the case ,a+ beA3 /hile their statutor+ authorit+ to participate in the area of fund
reali0n,ent is contained in2 first , para0raph -, !pecial Provision 5'=8 /hich explicitl+ state s,
a,on0 others, that Aan+ reali0n,ent of funds shall be sub,itted to the <ouse Co,,ittee on
Appropriations and the !enate Co,,ittee on .inance for favorable endorse,ent to the DBM or
the i,ple,entin0 a0enc+, as the case ,a+ be 3 and, second , para0raph ', also of !pecial
Provision 5 /hich authori9es the A!ecretaries of A0riculture, Education, Ener0+, nterior and
;ocal Bovern,ent, ;abor and E,plo+,ent, Public Dor$s and <i0h/a+s, !ocial Delfare and
Develop,ent and #rade and ndustr+'8( x x x to approve reali0n,ent fro, one pro7ectFscope to
another /ithin the allot,ent received fro, this .und, sub7ect to a,on0 others %iii& the re6uest is
/ith the concurrence of the le0islator concerned.A
Clearl+, these post-enact,ent ,easures /hich 0overn the areas of pro7ect identification, fund
release and fund reali0n,ent are not related to functions of con0ressional oversi0ht and, hence,
allo/ le0islators to intervene andFor assu,e duties that properl+ belon0 to the sphere of bud0et
execution. ndeed, b+ virtue of the fore0oin0, le0islators have been, in one for, or another,
authori9ed to participate in @ as Buin0ona, >r. puts it @ Athe various operational aspects of
bud0etin0,A includin0 Athe evaluation of /or$ and financial plans for individual activitiesA and
the Are0ulation and release of fundsA in violation of the separation of po/ers principle. #he
funda,ental rule, as cate0oricall+ articulated in Aba$ada, cannot be overstated @ fro, the
,o,ent the la/ beco,es effective, an+ provision of la/ that e,po/ers Con0ress or an+ of its
,e,bers to pla+ an+ role in the i,ple,entation or enforce,ent of the la/ violates the principle
of separation of po/ers and is thus unconstitutional.'8' #hat the said authorit+ is treated as
,erel+ reco,,endator+ in nature does not alter its unconstitutional tenor since the prohibition,
to repeat, covers an+ role in the i,ple,entation or enforce,ent of the la/. #o/ards this end, the
Court ,ust therefore abandon its rulin0 in Philconsa /hich sanctioned the conduct of le0islator
identification on the 0uise that the sa,e is ,erel+ reco,,endator+ and, as such, respondentsO
reliance on the sa,e falters alto0ether.
Besides, it ,ust be pointed out that respondents have nonetheless failed to substantiate their
position that the identification authorit+ of le0islators is onl+ of reco,,endator+ i,port. Wuite
the contrar+, respondents @ throu0h the state,ents of the !olicitor Beneral durin0 the "ral
Ar0u,ents @ have ad,itted that the identification of the le0islator constitutes a ,andator+
re6uire,ent before his PDA. can be tapped as a fundin0 source, thereb+ hi0hli0htin0 the
indispensabilit+ of the said act to the entire bud0et execution process2'8-
>ustice Bernabe2 No/, /ithout the individual le0islator?s identification of the pro7ect, can the
PDA. of the le0islator be utili9edL
!olicitor Beneral >ardele9a2 No, Jour <onor.
>ustice Bernabe2 t cannotL
!olicitor Beneral >ardele9a2 t cannotY %interrupted&
>ustice Bernabe2 !o ,eanin0 +ou should have the identification of the pro7ect b+ the individual
le0islatorL
!olicitor Beneral >ardele9a2 Jes, Jour <onor.
x x x x
>ustice Bernabe2 n short, the act of identification is ,andator+L
!olictor Beneral >ardele9a2 Jes, Jour <onor. n the sense that if it is not done and then there is
no identification.
x x x x
>ustice Bernabe2 No/, /ould +ou $no/ of specific instances /hen a pro7ect /as i,ple,ented
/ithout the identification b+ the individual le0islatorL
!olicitor Beneral >ardele9a2 do not $no/, Jour <onor3 do not thin$ so but have no specific
exa,ples. /ould doubt ver+ ,uch, Jour <onor, because to i,ple,ent, there is a need for a
!AR" and the NCA. And the !AR" and the NCA are tri00ered b+ an identification fro, the
le0islator.
x x x x
!olictor Beneral >ardele9a2 Dhat /e ,ean b+ ,andator+, Jour <onor, is /e /ere repl+in0 to a
6uestion, A<o/ can a le0islator ,a$e sure that he is able to 0et PDA. .undsLA t is ,andator+ in
the sense that he ,ust identif+, in that sense, Jour <onor. "ther/ise, if he does not identif+, he
cannot avail of the PDA. .unds and his district /ould not be able to have PDA. .unds, onl+ in
that sense, Jour <onor. %E,phases supplied&
#hus, for all the fore0oin0 reasons, the Court hereb+ declares the -('4 PDA. Article as /ell as
all other provisions of la/ /hich si,ilarl+ allo/ le0islators to /ield an+ for, of post-enact,ent
authorit+ in the i,ple,entation or enforce,ent of the bud0et, unrelated to con0ressional
oversi0ht, as violative of the separation of po/ers principle and thus unconstitutional. Corollar+
thereto, infor,al practices, throu0h /hich le0islators have effectivel+ intruded into the proper
phases of bud0et execution, ,ust be dee,ed as acts of 0rave abuse of discretion a,ountin0 to
lac$ or excess of 7urisdiction and, hence, accorded the sa,e unconstitutional treat,ent. #hat
such infor,al practices do exist and have, in fact, been constantl+ observed throu0hout the +ears
has not been substantiall+ disputed here. As pointed out b+ Chief >ustice Maria ;ourdes P.A.
!ereno %Chief >ustice !ereno& durin0 the "ral Ar0u,ents of these cases2'84
Chief >ustice !ereno2
No/, fro, the responses of the representative of both, the DBM and t/o %-& <ouses of
Con0ress, if /e enforces the initial thou0ht that have, after had seen the extent of this research
,ade b+ ,+ staff, that neither the Executive nor Con0ress frontall+ faced the 6uestion of
constitutional co,patibilit+ of ho/ the+ /ere en0ineerin0 the bud0et process. n fact, the /ords
+ou have been usin0, as the three la/+ers of the DBM, and both <ouses of Con0ress has also
been usin0 is surprise3 surprised that all of these thin0s are no/ surfacin0. n fact, thou0ht that
/hat the -('4 PDA. provisions did /as to codif+ in one section all the past practice that had
been done since '88'. n a certain sense, /e should be than$ful that the+ are all no/ in the
PDA. !pecial Provisions. x x x %E,phasis and underscorin0 supplied&
1lti,atel+, le0islators cannot exercise po/ers /hich the+ do not have, /hether throu0h for,al
,easures /ritten into the la/ or infor,al practices institutionali9ed in 0overn,ent a0encies, else
the Executive depart,ent be deprived of /hat the Constitution has vested as its o/n.
-. Non-dele0abilit+ of ;e0islative Po/er.
a. !tate,ent of Principle.
As an ad7unct to the separation of po/ers principle,'85 le0islative po/er shall be exclusivel+
exercised b+ the bod+ to /hich the Constitution has conferred the sa,e. n particular, !ection ',
Article G of the '8=) Constitution states that such po/er shall be vested in the Con0ress of the
Philippines /hich shall consist of a !enate and a <ouse of Representatives, except to the extent
reserved to the people b+ the provision on initiative and referendu,.'8* Based on this provision,
it is clear that onl+ Con0ress, actin0 as a bica,eral bod+, and the people, throu0h the process of
initiative and referendu,, ,a+ constitutionall+ /ield le0islative po/er and no other. #his
pre,ise e,bodies the principle of non-dele0abilit+ of le0islative po/er, and the onl+ reco0ni9ed
exceptions thereto /ould be2 %a& dele0ated le0islative po/er to local 0overn,ents /hich, b+
i,,e,orial practice, are allo/ed to le0islate on purel+ local ,atters3'8: and %b&
constitutionall+-0rafted exceptions such as the authorit+ of the President to, b+ la/, exercise
po/ers necessar+ and proper to carr+ out a declared national polic+ in ti,es of /ar or other
national e,er0enc+,'8) or fix /ithin specified li,its, and sub7ect to such li,itations and
restrictions as Con0ress ,a+ i,pose, tariff rates, i,port and export 6uotas, tonna0e and
/harfa0e dues, and other duties or i,posts /ithin the fra,e/or$ of the national develop,ent
pro0ra, of the Bovern,ent.'8=
Notabl+, the principle of non-dele0abilit+ should not be confused as a restriction to dele0ate rule-
,a$in0 authorit+ to i,ple,entin0 a0encies for the li,ited purpose of either fillin0 up the details
of the la/ for its enforce,ent %supple,entar+ rule-,a$in0& or ascertainin0 facts to brin0 the la/
into actual operation %contin0ent rule-,a$in0&.'88 #he conceptual treat,ent and li,itations of
dele0ated rule-,a$in0 /ere explained in the case of People v. Maceren-(( as follo/s2
#he 0rant of the rule-,a$in0 po/er to ad,inistrative a0encies is a relaxation of the principle of
separation of po/ers and is an exception to the nondele0ation of le0islative po/ers.
Ad,inistrative re0ulations or Asubordinate le0islationA calculated to pro,ote the public interest
are necessar+ because of Athe 0ro/in0 co,plexit+ of ,odern life, the ,ultiplication of the
sub7ects of 0overn,ental re0ulations, and the increased difficult+ of ad,inisterin0 the la/.A
x x x x
Nevertheless, it ,ust be e,phasi9ed that the rule-,a$in0 po/er ,ust be confined to details for
re0ulatin0 the ,ode or proceedin0 to carr+ into effect the la/ as it has been enacted. #he po/er
cannot be extended to a,endin0 or expandin0 the statutor+ re6uire,ents or to e,brace ,atters
not covered b+ the statute. Rules that subvert the statute cannot be sanctioned. %E,phases
supplied&
b. Application.
n the cases at bar, the Court observes that the -('4 PDA. Article, insofar as it confers post-
enact,ent identification authorit+ to individual le0islators, violates the principle of non-
dele0abilit+ since said le0islators are effectivel+ allo/ed to individuall+ exercise the po/er of
appropriation, /hich @ as settled in Philconsa @ is lod0ed in Con0ress.-(' #hat the po/er to
appropriate ,ust be exercised onl+ throu0h le0islation is clear fro, !ection -8%'&, Article G of
the '8=) Constitution /hich states that2 ANo ,one+ shall be paid out of the #reasur+ except in
pursuance of an appropriation ,ade b+ la/.A #o understand /hat constitutes an act of
appropriation, the Court, in Ben09on v. !ecretar+ of >ustice and nsular Auditor-(- %Ben09on&,
held that the po/er of appropriation involves %a& the settin0 apart b+ la/ of a certain su, fro,
the public revenue for %b& a specified purpose. Essentiall+, under the -('4 PDA. Article,
individual le0islators are 0iven a personal lu,p-su, fund fro, /hich the+ are able to dictate %a&
ho/ ,uch fro, such fund /ould 0o to %b& a specific pro7ect or beneficiar+ that the+ the,selves
also deter,ine. As these t/o %-& acts co,prise the exercise of the po/er of appropriation as
described in Ben09on, and 0iven that the -('4 PDA. Article authori9es individual le0islators to
perfor, the sa,e, undoubtedl+, said le0islators have been conferred the po/er to le0islate /hich
the Constitution does not, ho/ever, allo/. #hus, $eepin0 /ith the principle of non-dele0abilit+
of le0islative po/er, the Court hereb+ declares the -('4 PDA. Article, as /ell as all other for,s
of Con0ressional Por$ Barrel /hich contain the si,ilar le0islative identification feature as herein
discussed, as unconstitutional.
4. Chec$s and Balances.
a. !tate,ent of Principle3 te,-Geto Po/er.
#he fact that the three 0reat po/ers of 0overn,ent are intended to be $ept separate and distinct
does not ,ean that the+ are absolutel+ unrestrained and independent of each other. #he
Constitution has also provided for an elaborate s+ste, of chec$s and balances to secure
coordination in the /or$in0s of the various depart,ents of the 0overn,ent.-(4
A pri,e exa,ple of a constitutional chec$ and balance /ould be the President?s po/er to veto an
ite, /ritten into an appropriation, revenue or tariff bill sub,itted to hi, b+ Con0ress for
approval throu0h a process $no/n as Abill present,ent.A #he PresidentOs ite,-veto po/er is
found in !ection -)%-&, Article G of the '8=) Constitution /hich reads as follo/s2
!ec. -). x x x.
x x x x
%-& #he President shall have the po/er to veto an+ particular ite, or ite,s in an appropriation,
revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the ite, or ite,s to /hich he does not ob7ect.
#he present,ent of appropriation, revenue or tariff bills to the President, /herein he ,a+
exercise his po/er of ite,-veto, for,s part of the Asin0le, finel+ /rou0ht and exhaustivel+
considered, proceduresA for la/-passa0e as specified under the Constitution.-(5 As stated in
Aba$ada, the final step in the la/-,a$in0 process is the Asub,ission of the bill to the President
for approval. "nce approved, it ta$es effect as la/ after the re6uired publication.A-(*
Elaboratin0 on the PresidentOs ite,-veto po/er and its relevance as a chec$ on the le0islature,
the Court, in Ben09on, explained that2-(:
#he for,er "r0anic Act and the present Constitution of the Philippines ,a$e the Chief
Executive an inte0ral part of the la/-,a$in0 po/er. <is disapproval of a bill, co,,onl+ $no/n
as a veto, is essentiall+ a le0islative act. #he 6uestions presented to the ,ind of the Chief
Executive are precisel+ the sa,e as those the le0islature ,ust deter,ine in passin0 a bill, except
that his /ill be a broader point of vie/.
#he Constitution is a li,itation upon the po/er of the le0islative depart,ent of the 0overn,ent,
but in this respect it is a 0rant of po/er to the executive depart,ent. #he ;e0islature has the
affir,ative po/er to enact la/s3 the Chief Executive has the ne0ative po/er b+ the constitutional
exercise of /hich he ,a+ defeat the /ill of the ;e0islature. t follo/s that the Chief Executive
,ust find his authorit+ in the Constitution. But in exercisin0 that authorit+ he ,a+ not be
confined to rules of strict construction or ha,pered b+ the un/ise interference of the 7udiciar+.
#he courts /ill indul0e ever+ intend,ent in favor of the constitutionalit+ of a veto in the sa,e
,anner as the+ /ill presu,e the constitutionalit+ of an act as ori0inall+ passed b+ the
;e0islature. %E,phases supplied&
#he 7ustification for the PresidentOs ite,-veto po/er rests on a variet+ of polic+ 0oals such as to
prevent lo0-rollin0 le0islation,-() i,pose fiscal restrictions on the le0islature, as /ell as to
fortif+ the executive branchOs role in the bud0etar+ process.-(= n ,,i0ration and
Naturali9ation !ervice v. Chadha, the 1! !upre,e Court characteri9ed the PresidentOs ite,-
po/er as Aa salutar+ chec$ upon the le0islative bod+, calculated to 0uard the co,,unit+ a0ainst
the effects of factions, precipitanc+, or of an+ i,pulse unfriendl+ to the public 0ood, /hich ,a+
happen to influence a ,a7orit+ of that bod+A3 phrased differentl+, it is ,eant to Aincrease the
chances in favor of the co,,unit+ a0ainst the passin0 of bad la/s, throu0h haste, inadvertence,
or desi0n.A-(8
.or the President to exercise his ite,-veto po/er, it necessaril+ follo/s that there exists a proper
Aite,A /hich ,a+ be the ob7ect of the veto. An ite,, as defined in the field of appropriations,
pertains to Athe particulars, the details, the distinct and severable parts of the appropriation or of
the bill.A n the case of Ben09on v. !ecretar+ of >ustice of the Philippine slands,-'( the 1!
!upre,e Court characteri9ed an ite, of appropriation as follo/s2
An ite, of an appropriation bill obviousl+ ,eans an ite, /hich, in itself, is a specific
appropriation of ,one+, not so,e 0eneral provision of la/ /hich happens to be put into an
appropriation bill. %E,phases supplied&
"n this pre,ise, it ,a+ be concluded that an appropriation bill, to ensure that the President ,a+
be able to exercise his po/er of ite, veto, ,ust contain Aspecific appropriations of ,one+A and
not onl+ A0eneral provisionsA /hich provide for para,eters of appropriation.
.urther, it is si0nificant to point out that an ite, of appropriation ,ust be an ite, characteri9ed
b+ sin0ular correspondence @ ,eanin0 an allocation of a specified sin0ular a,ount for a
specified sin0ular purpose, other/ise $no/n as a Aline-ite,.A-'' #his treat,ent not onl+ allo/s
the ite, to be consistent /ith its definition as a Aspecific appropriation of ,one+A but also
ensures that the President ,a+ discernibl+ veto the sa,e. Based on the fore0oin0 for,ulation,
the existin0 Cala,it+ .und, Contin0ent .und and the ntelli0ence .und, bein0 appropriations
/hich state a specified a,ount for a specific purpose, /ould then be considered as Aline- ite,A
appropriations /hich are ri0htfull+ sub7ect to ite, veto. ;i$e/ise, it ,ust be observed that an
appropriation ,a+ be validl+ apportioned into co,ponent percenta0es or values3 ho/ever, it is
crucial that each percenta0e or value ,ust be allocated for its o/n correspondin0 purpose for
such co,ponent to be considered as a proper line-ite,. Moreover, as >ustice Carpio correctl+
pointed out, a valid appropriation ,a+ even have several related purposes that are b+ accountin0
and bud0etin0 practice considered as one purpose, e.0., M""E %,aintenance and other operatin0
expenses&, in /hich case the related purposes shall be dee,ed sufficientl+ specific for the
exercise of the PresidentOs ite, veto po/er. .inall+, special purpose funds and discretionar+
funds /ould e6uall+ s6uare /ith the constitutional ,echanis, of ite,-veto for as lon0 as the+
follo/ the rule on sin0ular correspondence as herein discussed. Anent special purpose funds, it
,ust be added that !ection -*%5&, Article G of the '8=) Constitution re6uires that the Aspecial
appropriations bill shall specif+ the purpose for /hich it is intended, and shall be supported b+
funds actuall+ available as certified b+ the National #reasurer, or t o be raised b+ a correspondin0
revenue proposal therein.A Mean/hile, /ith respect to discretionar+ funds, !ection - *%:&,
Article G of the '8=) Constitution re6uires that said funds Ashall be disbursed onl+ for public
purposes to be supported b+ appropriate vouchers and sub7ect to such 0uidelines as ,a+ be
prescribed b+ la/.A
n contrast, /hat bec$ons constitutional infir,it+ are appropriations /hich ,erel+ provide for a
sin0ular lu,p-su, a,ount to be tapped as a source of fundin0 for ,ultiple purposes. !ince such
appropriation t+pe necessitates the further deter,ination of both the actual a,ount to be
expended and the actual purpose of the appropriation /hich ,ust still be chosen fro, the
,ultiple purposes stated in the la/, it cannot be said that the appropriation la/ alread+ indicates
a Aspecific appropriation of ,one+ and hence, /ithout a proper line-ite, /hich the President
,a+ veto. As a practical result, the President /ould then be faced /ith the predica,ent of either
vetoin0 the entire appropriation if he finds so,e of its purposes /asteful or undesirable, or
approvin0 the entire appropriation so as not to hinder so,e of its le0iti,ate purposes. .inall+, it
,a+ not be a,iss to state that such arran0e,ent also raises non-dele0abilit+ issues considerin0
that the i,ple,entin0 authorit+ /ould still have to deter,ine, a0ain, both the actual a,ount to
be expended and the actual purpose of the appropriation. !ince the fore0oin0 deter,inations
constitute the inte0ral aspects of the po/er to appropriate, the i,ple,entin0 authorit+ /ould, in
effect, be exercisin0 le0islative prero0atives in violation of the principle of non-dele0abilit+.
b. Application.
n these cases, petitioners clai, that Ain the current x x x s+ste, /here the PDA. is a lu,p-su,
appropriation, the le0islatorOs identification of the pro7ects after the passa0e of the BAA denies
the President the chance to veto that ite, later on.A-'- Accordin0l+, the+ sub,it that the Aite,
veto po/er of the President ,andates that appropriations bills adopt line-ite, bud0etin0A and
that ACon0ress cannot choose a ,ode of bud0etin0 /hich effectivel+ renders the constitutionall+-
0iven po/er of the President useless.A-'4
"n the other hand, respondents ,aintain that the text of the Constitution envisions a process
/hich is intended to ,eet the de,ands of a ,oderni9in0 econo,+ and, as such, lu,p-su,
appropriations are essential to financiall+ address situations /hich are barel+ foreseen /hen a
BAA is enacted. #he+ ar0ue that the decision of the Con0ress to create so,e lu,p-su,
appropriations is constitutionall+ allo/ed and textuall+-0rounded.-'5
#he Court a0rees /ith petitioners.
1nder the -('4 PDA. Article, the a,ount of P-5.)8 Billion onl+ appears as a collective
allocation li,it since the said a,ount /ould be further divided a,on0 individual le0islators /ho
/ould then receive personal lu,p-su, allocations and could, after the BAA is passed,
effectivel+ appropriate PDA. funds based on their o/n discretion. As these inter,ediate
appropriations are ,ade b+ le0islators onl+ after the BAA is passed and hence, outside of the
la/, it necessaril+ ,eans that the actual ite,s of PDA. appropriation /ould not have been
/ritten into the Beneral Appropriations Bill and thus effectuated /ithout veto consideration. #his
$ind of lu,p-su,Fpost-enact,ent le0islative identification bud0etin0 s+ste, fosters the creation
of a bud0et /ithin a bud0etA /hich subverts the prescribed procedure of present,ent and
conse6uentl+ i,pairs the PresidentOs po/er of ite, veto. As petitioners aptl+ point out, the
above-described s+ste, forces the President to decide bet/een %a& acceptin0 the entire P-5.)8
Billion PDA. allocation /ithout $no/in0 the specific pro7ects of the le0islators, /hich ,a+ or
,a+ not be consistent /ith his national a0enda and %b& re7ectin0 the /hole PDA. to the
detri,ent of all other le0islators /ith le0iti,ate pro7ects.-'*
Moreover, even /ithout its post-enact,ent le0islative identification feature, the -('4 PDA.
Article /ould re,ain constitutionall+ fla/ed since it /ould then operate as a prohibited for, of
lu,p-su, appropriation above-characteri9ed. n particular, the lu,p-su, a,ount of P-5.)8
Billion /ould be treated as a ,ere fundin0 source allotted for ,ultiple purposes of spendin0, i.e.,
scholarships, ,edical ,issions, assistance to indi0ents, preservation of historical ,aterials,
construction of roads, flood control, etc. #his setup connotes that the appropriation la/ leaves the
actual a,ounts and purposes of the appropriation for further deter,ination and, therefore, does
not readil+ indicate a discernible ite, /hich ,a+ be sub7ect to the PresidentOs po/er of ite,
veto.
n fact, on the accountabilit+ side, the sa,e lu,p-su, bud0etin0 sche,e has, as the CoA
Chairperson rela+s, Ali,ited state auditors fro, obtainin0 relevant data and infor,ation that
/ould aid in ,ore strin0entl+ auditin0 the utili9ation of said .unds.A-': Accordin0l+, she
reco,,ends the adoption of a Aline b+ line bud0et or a,ount per proposed pro0ra,, activit+ or
pro7ect, and per i,ple,entin0 a0enc+.A-')
<ence, in vie/ of the reasons above-stated, the Court finds the -('4 PDA. Article, as /ell as all
Con0ressional Por$ Barrel ;a/s of si,ilar operation, to be unconstitutional. #hat such bud0etin0
s+ste, provides for a 0reater de0ree of flexibilit+ to account for future contin0encies cannot be
an excuse to defeat /hat the Constitution re6uires. Clearl+, the first and essential truth of the
,atter is that unconstitutional ,eans do not 7ustif+ even co,,endable ends.-'=
c. Accountabilit+.
Petitioners further relate that the s+ste, under /hich various for,s of Con0ressional Por$ Barrel
operate defies public accountabilit+ as it renders Con0ress incapable of chec$in0 itself or its
Me,bers. n particular, the+ point out that the Con0ressional Por$ Barrel A0ives each le0islator a
direct, financial interest in the s,ooth, speed+ passin0 of the +earl+ bud0etA /hich turns the,
Afro, fiscali9ersA into Afinanciall+-interested partners.A-'8 #he+ also clai, that the s+ste, has
an effect on re- election as Athe PDA. excels in self-perpetuation of elective officials.A .inall+,
the+ add that the APDA. i,pairs the po/er of i,peach,entA as such Afunds are indeed 6uite
useful, Oto /ell, accelerate the decisions of senators.OA--(
#he Court a0rees in part.
#he aphoris, for0ed under !ection ', Article R of the '8=) Constitution, /hich states that
Apublic office is a public trust,A is an overarchin0 re,inder that ever+ instru,entalit+ of
0overn,ent should exercise their official functions onl+ in accordance /ith the principles of the
Constitution /hich e,bodies the para,eters of the peopleOs trust. #he notion of a public trust
connotes accountabilit+,--' hence, the various ,echanis,s in the Constitution /hich are
desi0ned to exact accountabilit+ fro, public officers.
A,on0 others, an accountabilit+ ,echanis, /ith /hich the proper expenditure of public funds
,a+ be chec$ed is the po/er of con0ressional oversi0ht. As ,entioned in Aba$ada,---
con0ressional oversi0ht ,a+ be perfor,ed either throu0h2 %a& scrutin+ based pri,aril+ on
Con0ressO po/er of appropriation and the bud0et hearin0s conducted in connection /ith it, its
po/er to as$ heads of depart,ents to appear before and be heard b+ either of its <ouses on an+
,atter pertainin0 to their depart,ents and its po/er of confir,ation3--4 or %b& investi0ation and
,onitorin0 of the i,ple,entation of la/s pursuant to the po/er of Con0ress to conduct in6uiries
in aid of le0islation.--5
#he Court a0rees /ith petitioners that certain features e,bedded in so,e for,s of Con0ressional
Por$ Barrel, a,on0 others the -('4 PDA. Article, has an effect on con0ressional oversi0ht. #he
fact that individual le0islators are 0iven post-enact,ent roles in the i,ple,entation of the bud0et
,a$es it difficult for the, to beco,e disinterested AobserversA /hen scrutini9in0, investi0atin0
or ,onitorin0 the i,ple,entation of the appropriation la/. #o a certain extent, the conduct of
oversi0ht /ould be tainted as said le0islators, /ho are vested /ith post-enact,ent authorit+,
/ould, in effect, be chec$in0 on activities in /hich the+ the,selves participate. Also, it ,ust be
pointed out that this ver+ sa,e concept of post-enact,ent authori9ation runs afoul of !ection '5,
Article G of the '8=) Constitution /hich provides that2
!ec. '5. No !enator or Me,ber of the <ouse of Representatives ,a+ personall+ appear as
counsel before an+ court of 7ustice or before the Electoral #ribunals, or 6uasi-7udicial and other
ad,inistrative bodies. Neither shall he, directl+ or indirectl+, be interested financiall+ in an+
contract /ith, or in an+ franchise or special privile0e 0ranted b+ the Bovern,ent, or an+
subdivision, a0enc+, or instru,entalit+ thereof, includin0 an+ 0overn,ent-o/ned or controlled
corporation, or its subsidiar+, durin0 his ter, of office. <e shall not intervene in an+ ,atter
before an+ office of the Bovern,ent for his pecuniar+ benefit or /here he ,a+ be called upon to
act on account of his office. %E,phasis supplied&
Clearl+, allo/in0 le0islators to intervene in the various phases of pro7ect i,ple,entation @ a
,atter before another office of 0overn,ent @ renders the, susceptible to ta$in0 undue advanta0e
of their o/n office.
#he Court, ho/ever, cannot co,pletel+ a0ree that the sa,e post-enact,ent authorit+ andFor the
individual le0islatorOs control of his PDA. per se /ould allo/ hi, to perpetuate hi,self in
office. ndeed, /hile the Con0ressional Por$ Barrel and a le0islatorOs use thereof ,a+ be lin$ed
to this area of interest, the use of his PDA. for re-election purposes is a ,atter /hich ,ust be
anal+9ed based on particular facts and on a case-to-case basis.
.inall+, /hile the Court accounts for the possibilit+ that the close operational proxi,it+ bet/een
le0islators and the Executive depart,ent, throu0h the for,erOs post-enact,ent participation, ,a+
affect the process of i,peach,ent, this ,atter lar0el+ borders on the do,ain of politics and does
not strictl+ concern the Por$ Barrel !+ste,Os intrinsic constitutionalit+. As such, it is an i,proper
sub7ect of 7udicial assess,ent.
n su,, insofar as its post-enact,ent features dilute con0ressional oversi0ht and violate !ection
'5, Article G of the '8=) Constitution, thus i,pairin0 public accountabilit+, the -('4 PDA.
Article and other for,s of Con0ressional Por$ Barrel of si,ilar nature are dee,ed as
unconstitutional.
5. Political D+nasties.
"ne of the petitioners sub,its that the Por$ Barrel !+ste, enables politicians /ho are ,e,bers
of political d+nasties to accu,ulate funds to perpetuate the,selves in po/er, in contravention of
!ection -:, Article of the '8=) Constitution--* /hich states that2
!ec. -:. #he !tate shall 0uarantee e6ual access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit
political d+nasties as ,a+ be defined b+ la/. %E,phasis and underscorin0 supplied&
At the outset, suffice it to state that the fore0oin0 provision is considered as not self-executin0
due to the 6ualif+in0 phrase Aas ,a+ be defined b+ la/.A n this respect, said provision does not,
b+ and of itself, provide a 7udiciall+ enforceable constitutional ri0ht but ,erel+ specifies
0uideline for le0islative or executive action.--: #herefore, since there appears to be no standin0
la/ /hich cr+stalli9es the polic+ on political d+nasties for enforce,ent, the Court ,ust defer
fro, rulin0 on this issue.
n an+ event, the Court finds the above-stated ar0u,ent on this score to be lar0el+ speculative
since it has not been properl+ de,onstrated ho/ the Por$ Barrel !+ste, /ould be able to
propa0ate political d+nasties.
*. ;ocal Autono,+.
#he !tateOs polic+ on local autono,+ is principall+ stated in !ection -*, Article and !ections -
and 4, Article R of the '8=) Constitution /hich read as follo/s2
AR#C;E
!ec. -*. #he !tate shall ensure the autono,+ of local 0overn,ents.
AR#C;E R
!ec. -. #he territorial and political subdivisions shall en7o+ local autono,+.
!ec. 4. #he Con0ress shall enact a local 0overn,ent code /hich shall provide for a ,ore
responsive and accountable local 0overn,ent structure instituted throu0h a s+ste, of
decentrali9ation /ith effective ,echanis,s of recall, initiative, and referendu,, allocate a,on0
the different local 0overn,ent units their po/ers, responsibilities, and resources, and provide for
the 6ualifications, election, appoint,ent and re,oval, ter,, salaries, po/ers and functions and
duties of local officials, and all other ,atters relatin0 to the or0ani9ation and operation of the
local units.
Pursuant thereto, Con0ress enacted RA )':(,--) other/ise $no/n as the A;ocal Bovern,ent
Code of '88'A %;BC&, /herein the polic+ on local autono,+ had been ,ore specificall+
explicated as follo/s2
!ec. -. Declaration of Polic+. @ %a& t is hereb+ declared the polic+ of the !tate that the territorial
and political subdivisions of the !tate shall en7o+ 0enuine and ,eanin0ful local autono,+ to
enable the, to attain their fullest develop,ent as self-reliant co,,unities and ,a$e the, ,ore
effective partners in the attain,ent of national 0oals. #o/ard this end, the !tate shall provide for
a ,ore responsive and accountable local 0overn,ent structure instituted throu0h a s+ste, of
decentrali9ation /hereb+ local 0overn,ent units shall be 0iven ,ore po/ers, authorit+,
responsibilities, and resources. #he process of decentrali9ation shall proceed fro, the National
Bovern,ent to the local 0overn,ent units.
x x x x
%c& t is li$e/ise the polic+ of the !tate to re6uire all national a0encies and offices to conduct
periodic consultations /ith appropriate local 0overn,ent units, non0overn,ental and peopleOs
or0ani9ations, and other concerned sectors of the co,,unit+ before an+ pro7ect or pro0ra, is
i,ple,ented in their respective 7urisdictions. %E,phases and underscorin0 supplied&
#he above-6uoted provisions of the Constitution and the ;BC reveal the polic+ of the !tate to
e,po/er local 0overn,ent units %;B1s& to develop and ulti,atel+, beco,e self-sustainin0 and
effective contributors to the national econo,+. As explained b+ the Court in Philippine
Ba,efo/l Co,,ission v. nter,ediate Appellate Court2--=
#his is as 0ood an occasion as an+ to stress the co,,it,ent of the Constitution to the polic+ of
local autono,+ /hich is intended to provide the needed i,petus and encoura0e,ent to the
develop,ent of our local political subdivisions as Aself - reliant co,,unities.A n the /ords of
>efferson, AMunicipal corporations are the s,all republics fro, /hich the 0reat one derives its
stren0th.A #he vitali9ation of local 0overn,ents /ill enable their inhabitants to full+ exploit their
resources and ,ore i,portant, i,bue the, /ith a deepened sense of involve,ent in public
affairs as ,e,bers of the bod+ politic. #his ob7ective could be blunted b+ undue interference b+
the national 0overn,ent in purel+ local affairs /hich are best resolved b+ the officials and
inhabitants of such political units. #he decision /e reach toda+ confor,s not onl+ to the letter of
the pertinent la/s but also to the spirit of the Constitution.--8 %E,phases and underscorin0
supplied&
n the cases at bar, petitioners contend that the Con0ressional Por$ Barrel 0oes a0ainst the
constitutional principles on local autono,+ since it allo/s district representatives, /ho are
national officers, to substitute their 7ud0,ents in utili9in0 public funds for local develop,ent.-4(
#he Court a0rees /ith petitioners.
Philconsa described the '885 CD. as an atte,pt Ato ,a$e e6ual the une6ualA and that Ait is also
a reco0nition that individual ,e,bers of Con0ress, far ,ore than the President and their
con0ressional collea0ues, are li$el+ to be $no/led0eable about the needs of their respective
constituents and the priorit+ to be 0iven each pro7ect.A-4' Dra/in0 stren0th fro, this
pronounce,ent, previous le0islators 7ustified its existence b+ statin0 that Athe relativel+ s,all
pro7ects i,ple,ented under the Con0ressional Por$ Barrel co,ple,ent and lin$ the national
develop,ent 0oals to the countr+side and 0rassroots as /ell as to depressed areas /hich are
overloo$ed b+ central a0encies /hich are preoccupied /ith ,e0a-pro7ects.-4- !i,ilarl+, in his
Au0ust -4, -('4 speech on the AabolitionA of PDA. and bud0etar+ refor,s, President A6uino
,entioned that the Con0ressional Por$ Barrel /as ori0inall+ established for a /orth+ 0oal,
/hich is to enable the representatives to identif+ pro7ects for co,,unities that the ;B1
concerned cannot afford.-44
Not/ithstandin0 these declarations, the Court, ho/ever, finds an inherent defect in the s+ste,
/hich actuall+ belies the avo/ed intention of A,a$in0 e6ual the une6ual.A n particular, the
Court observes that the 0au0e of PDA. and CD. allocationFdivision is based solel+ on the fact of
office, /ithout ta$in0 into account the specific interests and peculiarities of the district the
le0islator represents. n this re0ard, the allocationFdivision li,its are clearl+ not based on 0enuine
para,eters of e6ualit+, /herein econo,ic or 0eo0raphic indicators have been ta$en into
consideration. As a result, a district representative of a hi0hl+-urbani9ed ,etropolis 0ets the sa,e
a,ount of fundin0 as a district representative of a far-flun0 rural province /hich /ould be
relativel+ AunderdevelopedA co,pared to the for,er. #o add, /hat rouses 0raver scrutin+ is that
even !enators and Part+-;ist Representatives @ and in so,e +ears, even the Gice-President @ /ho
do not represent an+ localit+, receive fundin0 fro, the Con0ressional Por$ Barrel as /ell. #hese
certainl+ are anathe,a to the Con0ressional Por$ BarrelOs ori0inal intent /hich is Ato ,a$e e6ual
the une6ual.A 1lti,atel+, the PDA. and CD. had beco,e personal funds under the effective
control of each le0islator and 0iven unto the, on the sole account of their office.
#he Court also observes that this concept of le0islator control underl+in0 the CD. and PDA.
conflicts /ith the functions of the various ;ocal Develop,ent Councils %;DCs& /hich are
alread+ le0all+ ,andated to Aassist the correspondin0 san00unian in settin0 the direction of
econo,ic and social develop,ent, and coordinatin0 develop,ent efforts /ithin its territorial
7urisdiction.A-45 Considerin0 that ;DCs are instru,entalities /hose functions are essentiall+
0eared to/ards ,ana0in0 local affairs,-4* their pro0ra,s, policies and resolutions should not be
overridden nor duplicated b+ individual le0islators, /ho are national officers that have no la/-
,a$in0 authorit+ except onl+ /hen actin0 as a bod+. #he under,inin0 effect on local autono,+
caused b+ the post-enact,ent authorit+ conferred to the latter /as succinctl+ put b+ petitioners in
the follo/in0 /ise2-4:
Dith PDA., a Con0ress,an can si,pl+ b+pass the local develop,ent council and initiate
pro7ects on his o/n, and even ta$e sole credit for its execution. ndeed, this t+pe of personalit+-
driven pro7ect identification has not onl+ contributed little to the overall develop,ent of the
district, but has even contributed to Afurther /ea$enin0 infrastructure plannin0 and coordination
efforts of the 0overn,ent.A
#hus, insofar as individual le0islators are authori9ed to intervene in purel+ local ,atters and
thereb+ subvert 0enuine local autono,+, the -('4 PDA. Article as /ell as all other si,ilar
for,s of Con0ressional Por$ Barrel is dee,ed unconstitutional.
Dith this final issue on the Con0ressional Por$ Barrel resolved, the Court no/ turns to the
substantive issues involvin0 the Presidential Por$ Barrel.
C. !ubstantive ssues on the Presidential Por$ Barrel.
'. Galidit+ of Appropriation.
Petitioners preli,inaril+ assail !ection = of PD 8'( and !ection '- of PD'=:8 %no/, a,ended b+
PD '884&, /hich respectivel+ provide for the Mala,pa+a .unds and the Presidential !ocial
.und, as invalid appropriations la/s since the+ do not have the Apri,ar+ and specificA purpose of
authori9in0 the release of public funds fro, the National #reasur+. Petitioners sub,it that
!ection = of PD 8'( is not an appropriation la/ since the Apri,ar+ and specific purpose of PD
8'( is the creation of an Ener0+ Develop,ent Board and !ection = thereof onl+ created a !pecial
.und incidental thereto.-4) n si,ilar re0ard, petitioners ar0ue that !ection '- of PD '=:8 is
neither a valid appropriations la/ since the allocation of the Presidential !ocial .und is ,erel+
incidental to the Apri,ar+ and specificA purpose of PD '=:8 /hich is the a,end,ent of the
.ranchise and Po/ers of PABC"R.-4= n vie/ of the fore0oin0, petitioners suppose that such
funds are bein0 used /ithout an+ valid la/ allo/in0 for their proper appropriation in violation of
!ection -8%'&, Article G of the '8=) Constitution /hich states that2 ANo ,one+ shall be paid out
of the #reasur+ except in pursuance of an appropriation ,ade b+ la/.A-48
#he Court disa0rees.
AAn appropriation ,ade b+ la/ under the conte,plation of !ection -8%'&, Article G of the
'8=) Constitution exists /hen a provision of la/ %a& sets apart a deter,inate or deter,inable-5(
a,ount of ,one+ and %b& allocates the sa,e for a particular public purpose. #hese t/o ,ini,u,
desi0nations of a,ount and purpose ste, fro, the ver+ definition of the /ord Aappropriation,A
/hich ,eans Ato allot, assi0n, set apart or appl+ to a particular use or purpose,A and hence, if
/ritten into the la/, de,onstrate that the le0islative intent to appropriate exists. As the
Constitution Adoes not provide or prescribe an+ particular for, of /ords or reli0ious recitals in
/hich an authori9ation or appropriation b+ Con0ress shall be ,ade, except that it be O,ade b+
la/,OA an appropriation la/ ,a+ @ accordin0 to Philconsa @ be Adetailed and as broad as
Con0ress /ants it to beA for as lon0 as the intent to appropriate ,a+ be 0leaned fro, the sa,e.
As held in the case of Buin0ona, >r.2-5'
#here is no provision in our Constitution that provides or prescribes an+ particular for, of /ords
or reli0ious recitals in /hich an authori9ation or appropriation b+ Con0ress shall be ,ade, except
that it be A,ade b+ la/,A such as precisel+ the authori9ation or appropriation under the
6uestioned presidential decrees. n other /ords, in ter,s of ti,e hori9ons, an appropriation ,a+
be ,ade i,pliedl+ %as b+ past but subsistin0 le0islations& as /ell as expressl+ for the current
fiscal +ear %as b+ enact,ent of la/s b+ the present Con0ress&, 7ust as said appropriation ,a+ be
,ade in 0eneral as /ell as in specific ter,s. #he Con0ressional authori9ation ,a+ be e,bodied
in annual la/s, such as a 0eneral appropriations act or in special provisions of la/s of 0eneral or
special application /hich appropriate public funds for specific public purposes, such as the
6uestioned decrees. An appropriation ,easure is sufficient if the le0islative intention clearl+ and
certainl+ appears fro, the lan0ua0e e,plo+ed %n re Continuin0 Appropriations, 4- P. -)-&,
/hether in the past or in the present. %E,phases and underscorin0 supplied&
;i$e/ise, as ruled b+ the 1! !upre,e Court in !tate of Nevada v. ;a Brave2-5-
#o constitute an appropriation there ,ust be ,one+ placed in a fund applicable to the desi0nated
purpose. #he /ord appropriate ,eans to allot, assi0n, set apart or appl+ to a particular use or
purpose. An appropriation in the sense of the constitution ,eans the settin0 apart a portion of the
public funds for a public purpose. No particular for, of /ords is necessar+ for the purpose, if the
intention to appropriate is plainl+ ,anifested. %E,phases supplied&
#hus, based on the fore0oin0, the Court cannot sustain the ar0u,ent that the appropriation ,ust
be the Apri,ar+ and specificA purpose of the la/ in order for a valid appropriation la/ to exist.
#o reiterate, if a le0al provision desi0nates a deter,inate or deter,inable a,ount of ,one+ and
allocates the sa,e for a particular public purpose, then the le0islative intent to appropriate
beco,es apparent and, hence, alread+ sufficient to satisf+ the re6uire,ent of an Aappropriation
,ade b+ la/A under conte,plation of the Constitution.
!ection = of PD 8'( pertinentl+ provides2
!ection =. Appropriations. x x x
All fees, revenues and receipts of the Board fro, an+ and all sources includin0 receipts fro,
service contracts and a0ree,ents such as application and processin0 fees, si0nature bonus,
discover+ bonus, production bonus3 all ,one+ collected fro, concessionaires, representin0
unspent /or$ obli0ations, fines and penalties under the Petroleu, Act of '8583 as /ell as the
0overn,ent share representin0 ro+alties, rentals, production share on service contracts and
si,ilar pa+,ents on the exploration, develop,ent and exploitation of ener0+ resources, shall
for, part of a !pecial .und to be used to finance ener0+ resource develop,ent and exploitation
pro0ra,s and pro7ects of the 0overn,ent and for such other purposes as ,a+ be hereafter
directed b+ the President. %E,phases supplied&
Dhereas !ection '- of PD '=:8, as a,ended b+ PD '884, reads2
!ec. '-. !pecial Condition of .ranchise. E After deductin0 five %*H& percent as .ranchise #ax,
the .ift+ %*(H& percent share of the Bovern,ent in the a00re0ate 0ross earnin0s of the
Corporation fro, this .ranchise, or :(H if the a00re0ate 0ross earnin0s be less than
P'*(,(((,(((.(( shall be set aside and shall accrue to the Beneral .und to finance the priorit+
infrastructure develop,ent pro7ects and to finance the restoration of da,a0ed or destro+ed
facilities due to cala,ities, as ,a+ be directed and authori9ed b+ the "ffice of the President of
the Philippines. %E,phases supplied&
Anal+9in0 the le0al text vis-Z-vis the above-,entioned principles, it ,a+ then be concluded that
%a& !ection = of PD 8'(, /hich creates a !pecial .und co,prised of Aall fees, revenues, and
receipts of the Ener0+ Develop,ent Board fro, an+ and all sourcesA %a deter,inable a,ount&
Ato be used to finance ener0+ resource develop,ent and exploitation pro0ra,s and pro7ects of
the 0overn,ent and for such other purposes as ,a+ be hereafter directed b+ the PresidentA %a
specified public purpose&, and %b& !ection '- of PD '=:8, as a,ended b+ PD '884, /hich
si,ilarl+ sets aside, Aafter deductin0 five %*H& percent as .ranchise #ax, the .ift+ %*(H& percent
share of the Bovern,ent in the a00re0ate 0ross earnin0s of PABC"R, or :(H, if the a00re0ate
0ross earnin0s be less than P'*(,(((,(((.((A %also a deter,inable a,ount& Ato finance the
priorit+ infrastructure develop,ent pro7ects and x x x the restoration of da,a0ed or destro+ed
facilities due to cala,ities, as ,a+ be directed and authori9ed b+ the "ffice of the President of
the PhilippinesA %also a specified public purpose&, are le0al appropriations under !ection -8%'&,
Article G of the '8=) Constitution.
n this relation, it is apropos to note that the -('4 PDA. Article cannot be properl+ dee,ed as a
le0al appropriation under the said constitutional provision precisel+ because, as earlier stated, it
contains post-enact,ent ,easures /hich effectivel+ create a s+ste, of inter,ediate
appropriations. #hese inter,ediate appropriations are the actual appropriations ,eant for
enforce,ent and since the+ are ,ade b+ individual le0islators after the BAA is passed, the+
occur outside the la/. As such, the Court observes that the real appropriation ,ade under the
-('4 PDA. Article is not the P-5.)8 Billion allocated for the entire PDA., but rather the post-
enact,ent deter,inations ,ade b+ the individual le0islators /hich are, to repeat, occurrences
outside of the la/. rrefra0abl+, the -('4 PDA. Article does not constitute an Aappropriation
,ade b+ la/A since it, in its truest sense, onl+ authori9es individual le0islators to appropriate in
violation of the non-dele0abilit+ principle as afore-discussed.
-. 1ndue Dele0ation.
"n a related ,atter, petitioners contend that !ection = of PD 8'( constitutes an undue dele0ation
of le0islative po/er since the phrase Aand for such other purposes as ,a+ be hereafter directed
b+ the PresidentA 0ives the President Aunbridled discretion to deter,ine for /hat purpose the
funds /ill be used.A-54 Respondents, on the other hand, ur0ed the Court to appl+ the principle of
e7usde, 0eneris to the sa,e section and thus, construe the phrase Aand for such other purposes as
,a+ be hereafter directed b+ the PresidentA to refer onl+ to other purposes related Ato ener0+
resource develop,ent and exploitation pro0ra,s and pro7ects of the 0overn,ent.A-55
#he Court a0rees /ith petitionersO sub,issions.
Dhile the desi0nation of a deter,inate or deter,inable a,ount for a particular public purpose is
sufficient for a le0al appropriation to exist, the appropriation la/ ,ust contain ade6uate
le0islative 0uidelines if the sa,e la/ dele0ates rule-,a$in0 authorit+ to the Executive-5* either
for the purpose of %a& fillin0 up the details of the la/ for its enforce,ent, $no/n as
supple,entar+ rule-,a$in0, or %b& ascertainin0 facts to brin0 the la/ into actual operation,
referred to as contin0ent rule-,a$in0.-5: #here are t/o %-& funda,ental tests to ensure that the
le0islative 0uidelines for dele0ated rule-,a$in0 are indeed ade6uate. #he first test is called the
Aco,pleteness test.A Case la/ states that a la/ is co,plete /hen it sets forth therein the polic+ to
be executed, carried out, or i,ple,ented b+ the dele0ate. "n the other hand, the second test is
called the Asufficient standard test.A >urisprudence holds that a la/ la+s do/n a sufficient
standard /hen it provides ade6uate 0uidelines or li,itations in the la/ to ,ap out the boundaries
of the dele0ateOs authorit+ and prevent the dele0ation fro, runnin0 riot.-5) #o be sufficient, the
standard ,ust specif+ the li,its of the dele0ateOs authorit+, announce the le0islative polic+, and
identif+ the conditions under /hich it is to be i,ple,ented.-5=
n vie/ of the fore0oin0, the Court a0rees /ith petitioners that the phrase Aand for such other
purposes as ,a+ be hereafter directed b+ the PresidentA under !ection = of PD 8'( constitutes an
undue dele0ation of le0islative po/er insofar as it does not la+ do/n a sufficient standard to
ade6uatel+ deter,ine the li,its of the PresidentOs authorit+ /ith respect to the purpose for /hich
the Mala,pa+a .unds ,a+ be used. As it reads, the said phrase 0ives the President /ide latitude
to use the Mala,pa+a .unds for an+ other purpose he ,a+ direct and, in effect, allo/s hi, to
unilaterall+ appropriate public funds be+ond the purvie/ of the la/. #hat the sub7ect phrase ,a+
be confined onl+ to Aener0+ resource develop,ent and exploitation pro0ra,s and pro7ects of the
0overn,entA under the principle of e7usde, 0eneris, ,eanin0 that the 0eneral /ord or phrase is
to be construed to include @ or be restricted to @ thin0s a$in to, rese,blin0, or of the sa,e $ind
or class as those specificall+ ,entioned,-58 is belied b+ three %4& reasons2 first, the phrase
Aener0+ resource develop,ent and exploitation pro0ra,s and pro7ects of the 0overn,entA states
a sin0ular and 0eneral class and hence, cannot be treated as a statutor+ reference of specific
thin0s fro, /hich the 0eneral phrase Afor such other purposesA ,a+ be li,ited3 second, the said
phrase also exhausts the class it represents, na,el+ ener0+ develop,ent pro0ra,s of the
0overn,ent3-*( and, third, the Executive depart,ent has, in fact, used the Mala,pa+a .unds for
non-ener0+ related purposes under the sub7ect phrase, thereb+ contradictin0 respondentsO o/n
position that it is li,ited onl+ to Aener0+ resource develop,ent and exploitation pro0ra,s and
pro7ects of the 0overn,ent.A-*' #hus, /hile !ection = of PD 8'( ,a+ have passed the
co,pleteness test since the polic+ of ener0+ develop,ent is clearl+ deducible fro, its text, the
phrase Aand for such other purposes as ,a+ be hereafter directed b+ the PresidentA under the
sa,e provision of la/ should nonetheless be stric$en do/n as unconstitutional as it lies
independentl+ unfettered b+ an+ sufficient standard of the dele0atin0 la/. #his not/ithstandin0,
it ,ust be underscored that the rest of !ection =, insofar as it allo/s for the use of the
Mala,pa+a .unds Ato finance ener0+ resource develop,ent and exploitation pro0ra,s and
pro7ects of the 0overn,ent,A re,ains le0all+ effective and subsistin0. #ruth be told, the declared
unconstitutionalit+ of the afore,entioned phrase is but an assurance that the Mala,pa+a .unds
/ould be used @ as it should be used @ onl+ in accordance /ith the avo/ed purpose and intention
of PD 8'(.
As for the Presidential !ocial .und, the Court ta$es 7udicial notice of the fact that !ection '- of
PD '=:8 has alread+ been a,ended b+ PD '884 /hich thus ,oots the partiesO sub,issions on
the sa,e.-*- Nevertheless, since the a,endator+ provision ,a+ be readil+ exa,ined under the
current para,eters of discussion, the Court proceeds to resolve its constitutionalit+.
Pri,aril+, !ection '- of PD '=:8, as a,ended b+ PD '884, indicates that the Presidential !ocial
.und ,a+ be used Ato first, finance the priorit+ infrastructure develop,ent pro7ects and second,
to finance the restoration of da,a0ed or destro+ed facilities due to cala,ities, as ,a+ be directed
and authori9ed b+ the "ffice of the President of the Philippines.A #he Court finds that /hile the
second indicated purpose ade6uatel+ curtails the authorit+ of the President to spend the
Presidential !ocial .und onl+ for restoration purposes /hich arise fro, cala,ities, the first
indicated purpose, ho/ever, 0ives hi, carte blanche authorit+ to use the sa,e fund for an+
infrastructure pro7ect he ,a+ so deter,ine as a Apriorit+A. Geril+, the la/ does not suppl+ a
definition of Apriorit+ in frastructure develop,ent pro7ectsA and hence, leaves the President
/ithout an+ 0uideline to construe the sa,e. #o note, the deli,itation of a pro7ect as one of
AinfrastructureA is too broad of a classification since the said ter, could pertain to an+ $ind of
facilit+. #his ,a+ be deduced fro, its lexico0raphic definition as follo/s2 Athe underl+in0
fra,e/or$ of a s+ste,, especiall+ public services and facilities %such as hi0h/a+s, schools,
brid0es, se/ers, and /ater-s+ste,s& needed to support co,,erce as /ell as econo,ic and
residential develop,ent.A-*4 n fine, the phrase Ato finance the priorit+ infrastructure
develop,ent pro7ectsA ,ust be stric$en do/n as unconstitutional since @ si,ilar to the above-
assailed provision under !ection = of PD 8'( @ it lies independentl+ unfettered b+ an+ sufficient
standard of the dele0atin0 la/. As the+ are severable, all other provisions of !ection '- of PD
'=:8, as a,ended b+ PD '884, re,ains le0all+ effective and subsistin0.
D. Ancillar+ Pra+ers. '.
Petitioners? Pra+er to be .urnished ;ists and Detailed Reports.
Aside fro, see$in0 the Court to declare the Por$ Barrel !+ste, unconstitutional @ as the Court
did so in the context of its pronounce,ents ,ade in this Decision @ petitioners e6uall+ pra+ that
the Executive !ecretar+ andFor the DBM be ordered to release to the CoA and to the public2 %a&
Athe co,plete scheduleFlist of le0islators /ho have availed of their PDA. and G;P fro, the
+ears -((4 to -('4, specif+in0 the use of the funds, the pro7ect or activit+ and the recipient
entities or individuals, and all pertinent data theretoA %PDA. 1se !cheduleF;ist&3-*5 and %b& Athe
use of the ExecutiveOs lu,p-su,, discretionar+ funds, includin0 the proceeds fro, the x x x
Mala,pa+a .unds and re,ittances fro, the PABC"R x x x fro, -((4 to -('4, specif+in0 the x
x x pro7ect or activit+ and the recipient entities or individuals, and all pertinent data theretoA-**
%Presidential Por$ 1se Report&. PetitionersO pra+er is 0rounded on !ection -=, Article and
!ection ), Article of the '8=) Constitution /hich read as follo/s2
AR#C;E
!ec. -=. !ub7ect to reasonable conditions prescribed b+ la/, the !tate adopts and i,ple,ents a
polic+ of full public disclosure of all its transactions involvin0 public interest.
AR#C;E !ec. ).
#he ri0ht of the people to infor,ation on ,atters of public concern shall be reco0ni9ed. Access
to official records, and to docu,ents and papers pertainin0 to official acts, transactions, or
decisions, as /ell as to 0overn,ent research data used as basis for polic+ develop,ent, shall be
afforded the citi9en, sub7ect to such li,itations as ,a+ be provided b+ la/.
#he Court denies petitionersO sub,ission.
Case la/ instructs that the proper re,ed+ to invo$e the ri0ht to infor,ation is to file a petition
for ,anda,us. As explained in the case of ;e0aspi v. Civil !ervice Co,,ission2-*:
Dhile the ,anner of exa,inin0 public records ,a+ be sub7ect to reasonable re0ulation b+ the
0overn,ent a0enc+ in custod+ thereof, the dut+ to disclose the infor,ation of public concern,
and to afford access to public records cannot be discretionar+ on the part of said a0encies.
Certainl+, its perfor,ance cannot be ,ade contin0ent upon the discretion of such a0encies.
"ther/ise, the en7o+,ent of the constitutional ri0ht ,a+ be rendered nu0ator+ b+ an+ /hi,sical
exercise of a0enc+ discretion. #he constitutional dut+, not bein0 discretionar+, its perfor,ance
,a+ be co,pelled b+ a /rit of ,anda,us in a proper case.
But /hat is a proper case for Manda,us to issueL n the case before 1s, the public ri0ht to be
enforced and the conco,itant dut+ of the !tate are une6uivocabl+ set forth in the Constitution.
#he decisive 6uestion on the propriet+ of the issuance of the /rit of ,anda,us in this case is,
/hether the infor,ation sou0ht b+ the petitioner is /ithin the a,bit of the constitutional
0uarantee. %E,phases supplied&
Corollaril+, in the case of Gal,onte v. Bel,onte >r.-*) %Gal,onte&, it has been clarified that the
ri0ht to infor,ation does not include the ri0ht to co,pel the preparation of Alists, abstracts,
su,,aries and the li$e.A n the sa,e case, it /as stressed that it is essential that the Aapplicant
has a /ell -defined, clear and certain le0al ri0ht to the thin0 de,anded and that it is the
i,perative dut+ of defendant to perfor, the act re6uired.A <ence, /ithout the fore0oin0
substantiations, the Court cannot 0rant a particular re6uest for infor,ation. #he pertinent
portions of Gal,onte are hereunder 6uoted2-*=
Althou0h citi9ens are afforded the ri0ht to infor,ation and, pursuant thereto, are entitled to
Aaccess to official records,A the Constitution does not accord the, a ri0ht to co,pel custodians
of official records to prepare lists, abstracts, su,,aries and the li$e in their desire to ac6uire
infor,ation on ,atters of public concern.
t ,ust be stressed that it is essential for a /rit of ,anda,us to issue that the applicant has a
/ell-defined, clear and certain le0al ri0ht to the thin0 de,anded and that it is the i,perative dut+
of defendant to perfor, the act re6uired. #he correspondin0 dut+ of the respondent to perfor,
the re6uired act ,ust be clear and specific ;e,i v. Galencia, B.R. No. ;--():=, Nove,ber
-8,'8:=,'-: !CRA -(43 "ca,po v. !ubido, B.R. No. ;--=455, Au0ust -), '8):, )- !CRA 554.
#he re6uest of the petitioners fails to ,eet this standard, there bein0 no dut+ on the part of
respondent to prepare the list re6uested. %E,phases supplied&
n these cases, aside fro, the fact that none of the petitions are in the nature of ,anda,us
actions, the Court finds that petitioners have failed to establish a Aa /ell-defined, clear and
certain le0al ri0htA to be furnished b+ the Executive !ecretar+ andFor the DBM of their re6uested
PDA. 1se !cheduleF;ist and Presidential Por$ 1se Report. Neither did petitioners assert an+
la/ or ad,inistrative issuance /hich /ould for, the bases of the latterOs dut+ to furnish the,
/ith the docu,ents re6uested. Dhile petitioners pra+ that said infor,ation be e6uall+ released to
the CoA, it ,ust be pointed out that the CoA has not been i,pleaded as a part+ to these cases nor
has it filed an+ petition before the Court to be allo/ed access to or to co,pel the release of an+
official docu,ent relevant to the conduct of its audit investi0ations. Dhile the Court reco0ni9es
that the infor,ation re6uested is a ,atter of si0nificant public concern, ho/ever, if onl+ to
ensure that the para,eters of disclosure are properl+ foisted and so as not to undul+ ha,per the
e6uall+ i,portant interests of the 0overn,ent, it is constrained to den+ petitionersO pra+er on this
score, /ithout pre7udice to a proper ,anda,us case /hich the+, or even the CoA, ,a+ choose to
pursue throu0h a separate petition.
t bears clarification that the CourtOs denial herein should onl+ cover petitionersO plea to be
furnished /ith such scheduleFlist and report and not in an+ /a+ den+ the,, or the 0eneral public,
access to official docu,ents /hich are alread+ existin0 and of public record. !ub7ect to
reasonable re0ulation and absent an+ valid statutor+ prohibition, access to these docu,ents
should not be proscribed. #hus, in Gal,onte, /hile the Court denied the application for
,anda,us to/ards the preparation of the list re6uested b+ petitioners therein, it nonetheless
allo/ed access to the docu,ents sou0ht for b+ the latter, sub7ect, ho/ever, to the custodianOs
reasonable re0ulations,vi9.2-*8
n fine, petitioners are entitled to access to the docu,ents evidencin0 loans 0ranted b+ the B!!,
sub7ect to reasonable re0ulations that the latter ,a+ pro,ul0ate relatin0 to the ,anner and hours
of exa,ination, to the end that da,a0e to or loss of the records ,a+ be avoided, that undue
interference /ith the duties of the custodian of the records ,a+ be prevented and that the ri0ht of
other persons entitled to inspect the records ,a+ be insured ;e0aspi v. Civil !ervice
Co,,ission, supra at p. *4=, 6uotin0 !ubido v. "9aeta, =( Phil. 4=4, 4=). #he petition, as to the
second and third alternative acts sou0ht to be done b+ petitioners, is ,eritorious.
<o/ever, the sa,e cannot be said /ith re0ard to the first act sou0ht b+ petitioners, i.e.,
Ato furnish petitioners the list of the na,es of the Batasan0 Pa,bansa ,e,bers belon0in0 to the
1ND" and PDP-;aban /ho /ere able to secure clean loans i,,ediatel+ before the .ebruar+ )
election thru the intercessionF,ar0inal note of the then .irst ;ad+ ,elda Marcos.A
#he Court, therefore, applies the sa,e treat,ent here.
-. Petitioners? Pra+er to nclude Matters in Con0ressional Deliberations.
Petitioners further see$ that the Court Aorder the inclusion in bud0etar+ deliberations /ith the
Con0ress of all presentl+, off-bud0et, lu,p su,, discretionar+ funds includin0 but not li,ited to,
proceeds fro, the x x x Mala,pa+a .und, re,ittances fro, the PABC"R and the PC!" or the
ExecutiveOs !ocial .unds.A-:(
!uffice it to state that the above-stated relief sou0ht b+ petitioners covers a ,atter /hich is
0enerall+ left to the prero0ative of the political branches of 0overn,ent. <ence, lest the Court
itself overreach, it ,ust e6uall+ den+ their pra+er on this score.
4. Respondents? Pra+er to ;ift #R"3 Conse6uential Effects of Decision.
#he final issue to be resolved ste,s fro, the interpretation accorded b+ the DBM to the concept
of released funds. n response to the CourtOs !epte,ber '(, -('4 #R" that en7oined the release
of the re,ainin0 PDA. allocated for the +ear -('4, the DBM issued Circular ;etter No. -('4-=
dated !epte,ber -), -('4 %DBM Circular -('4-=& /hich pertinentl+ reads as follo/s2
4.( Nonetheless, PDA. pro7ects funded under the .J -('4 BAA, /here a !pecial Allot,ent
Release "rder %!AR"& has been issued b+ the DBM and such !AR" has been obli0ated b+ the
i,ple,entin0 a0encies prior to the issuance of the #R", ,a+ continuall+ be i,ple,ented and
disburse,ents thereto effected b+ the a0encies concerned.
Based on the text of the fore0oin0, the DBM authori9ed the continued i,ple,entation and
disburse,ent of PDA. funds as lon0 as the+ are2 first, covered b+ a !AR"3 and, second, that
said !AR" had been obli0ated b+ the i,ple,entin0 a0enc+ concerned prior to the issuance of
the CourtOs !epte,ber '(, -('4 #R".
Petitioners ta$e issue /ith the fore0oin0 circular, ar0uin0 that Athe issuance of the !AR" does
not +et involve the release of funds under the PDA., as release is onl+ tri00ered b+ the issuance
of a Notice of Cash Allocation P%NCA&Q.A-:' As such, PDA. disburse,ents, even if covered b+
an obli0ated !AR", should re,ain en7oined.
.or their part, respondents espouse that the sub7ect #R" onl+ covers Aunreleased and unobli0ated
allot,ents.A #he+ explain that once a !AR" has been issued and obli0ated b+ the i,ple,entin0
a0enc+ concerned, the PDA. funds covered b+ the sa,e are alread+ Abe+ond the reach of the
#R" because the+ cannot be considered as Ore,ainin0 PDA..OA #he+ conclude that this is a
reasonable interpretation of the #R" b+ the DBM.-:-
#he Court a0rees /ith petitioners in part.
At the outset, it ,ust be observed that the issue of /hether or not the CourtOs !epte,ber '(,
-('4 #R" should be lifted is a ,atter rendered ,oot b+ the present Decision. #he
unconstitutionalit+ of the -('4 PDA. Article as declared herein has the conse6uential effect of
convertin0 the te,porar+ in7unction into a per,anent one. <ence, fro, the pro,ul0ation of this
Decision, the release of the re,ainin0 PDA. funds for -('4, a,on0 others, is no/ per,anentl+
en7oined.
#he propriet+ of the DBMOs interpretation of the concept of AreleaseA ,ust, nevertheless, be
resolved as it has a practical i,pact on the execution of the current Decision. n particular, the
Court ,ust resolve the issue of /hether or not PDA. funds covered b+ obli0ated !AR"s, at the
ti,e this Decision is pro,ul0ated, ,a+ still be disbursed follo/in0 the DBMOs interpretation in
DBM Circular -('4-=.
"n this score, the Court a0rees /ith petitionersO posturin0 for the funda,ental reason that funds
covered b+ an obli0ated !AR" are +et to be AreleasedA under le0al conte,plation. A !AR", as
defined b+ the DBM itself in its /ebsite, is Aaspecific authorit+ issued to identified a0encies to
incur obli0ations not exceedin0 a 0iven a,ount durin0 a specified period for the purpose
indicated. t shall cover expenditures the release of /hich is sub7ect to co,pliance /ith specific
la/s or re0ulations, or is sub7ect to separate approval or clearance b+ co,petent authorit+.A-:4
Based on this definition, it ,a+ be 0leaned that a !AR" onl+ evinces the existence of an
obli0ation and not the directive to pa+. Practicall+ spea$in0, the !AR" does not have the direct
and i,,ediate effect of placin0 public funds be+ond the control of the disbursin0 authorit+. n
fact, a !AR" ,a+ even be /ithdra/n under certain circu,stances /hich /ill prevent the actual
release of funds. "n the other hand, the actual release of funds is brou0ht about b+ the issuance
of the NCA,-:5 /hich is subse6uent to the issuance of a !AR". As ,a+ be deter,ined fro, the
state,ents of the DBM representative durin0 the "ral Ar0u,ents2-:*
>ustice Bernabe2 s the notice of allocation issued si,ultaneousl+ /ith the !AR"L
x x x x
Att+. Rui92 t co,es after. #he !AR", Jour <onor, is onl+ the 0o si0nal for the a0encies to
obli0ate or to enter into co,,it,ents. #he NCA, Jour <onor, is alread+ the 0o si0nal to the
treasur+ for us to be able to pa+ or to li6uidate the a,ounts obli0ated in the !AR"3 so it co,es
after. x x x #he NCA, Jour <onor, is the 0o si0nal for the MD! for the authori9ed 0overn,ent-
disbursin0 ban$s to, therefore, pa+ the pa+ees dependin0 on the pro7ects or pro7ects covered b+
the !AR" and the NCA.
>ustice Bernabe2 Are there instances that !AR"s are cancelled or revo$edL
Att+. Rui92 Jour <onor, /ould li$e to instead sub,it that there are instances that the !AR"s
issued are /ithdra/n b+ the DBM.
>ustice Bernabe2 #he+ are /ithdra/nL
Att+. Rui92 Jes, Jour <onor x x x. %E,phases and underscorin0 supplied&
#hus, unless an NCA has been issued, public funds should not be treated as funds /hich have
been Areleased.A n this respect, therefore, the disburse,ent of -('4 PDA. funds /hich are onl+
covered b+ obli0ated !AR"s, and /ithout an+ correspondin0 NCAs issued, ,ust, at the ti,e of
this Decision?s pro,ul0ation, be en7oined and conse6uentl+ reverted to the unappropriated
surplus of the 0eneral fund. Geril+, in vie/ of the declared unconstitutionalit+ of the -('4 PDA.
Article, the funds appropriated pursuant thereto cannot be disbursed even thou0h alread+
obli0ated, else the Court sanctions the dealin0 of funds co,in0 fro, an unconstitutional source.
#his sa,e pronounce,ent ,ust be e6uall+ applied to %a& the Mala,pa+a .unds /hich have been
obli0ated but not released @ ,eanin0, those ,erel+ covered b+ a !AR" @ under the phrase Aand
for such other purposes as ,a+ be hereafter directed b+ the PresidentA pursuant to !ection = of
PD 8'(3 and %b& funds sourced fro, the Presidential !ocial .und under the phrase Ato finance the
priorit+ infrastructure develop,ent pro7ectsA pursuant to !ection '- of PD '=:8, as a,ended b+
PD '884, /hich /ere alto0ether declared b+ the Court as unconstitutional. <o/ever, these funds
should not be reverted to the 0eneral fund as afore-stated but instead, respectivel+ re,ain under
the Mala,pa+a .unds and the Presidential !ocial .und to be utili9ed for their correspondin0
special purposes not other/ise declared as unconstitutional.
E. Conse6uential Effects of Decision.
As a final point, it ,ust be stressed that the CourtOs pronounce,ent anent the unconstitutionalit+
of %a& the -('4 PDA. Article and its !pecial Provisions, %b& all other Con0ressional Por$ Barrel
provisions si,ilar thereto, and %c& the phrases %'& Aand for such other purposes as ,a+ be
hereafter directed b+ the PresidentA under !ection = of PD 8'(, and %-& Ato finance the priorit+
infrastructure develop,ent pro7ectsA under !ection '- of PD '=:8, as a,ended b+ PD '884,
,ust onl+ be treated as prospective in effect in vie/ of the operative fact doctrine.
#o explain, the operative fact doctrine exhorts the reco0nition that until the 7udiciar+, in an
appropriate case, declares the invalidit+ of a certain le0islative or executive act, such act is
presu,ed constitutional and thus, entitled to obedience and respect and should be properl+
enforced and co,plied /ith. As explained in the recent case of Co,,issioner of nternal
Revenue v. !an Ro6ue Po/er Corporation,-:: the doctrine ,erel+ Areflects a/areness that
precisel+ because the 7udiciar+ is the 0overn,ental or0an /hich has the final sa+ on /hether or
not a le0islative or executive ,easure is valid, a period of ti,e ,a+ have elapsed before it can
exercise the po/er of 7udicial revie/ that ,a+ lead to a declaration of nullit+. t /ould be to
deprive the la/ of its 6ualit+ of fairness and 7ustice then, if there be no reco0nition of /hat had
transpired prior to such ad7udication.A-:) An the lan0ua0e of an A,erican !upre,e Court
decision2 O#he actual existence of a statute, prior to such a deter,ination of unconstitutionalit+, is
an operative fact and ,a+ have conse6uences /hich cannot 7ustl+ be i0nored.OA-:=
.or these reasons, this Decision should be heretofore applied prospectivel+.
Conclusion
#he Court renders this Decision to rectif+ an error /hich has persisted in the chronicles of our
histor+. n the final anal+sis, the Court ,ust stri$e do/n the Por$ Barrel !+ste, as
unconstitutional in vie/ of the inherent defects in the rules /ithin /hich it operates. #o recount,
insofar as it has allo/ed le0islators to /ield, in var+in0 0radations, non-oversi0ht, post-
enact,ent authorit+ in vital areas of bud0et execution, the s+ste, has violated the principle of
separation of po/ers3 insofar as it has conferred unto le0islators the po/er of appropriation b+
0ivin0 the, personal, discretionar+ funds fro, /hich the+ are able to fund specific pro7ects
/hich the+ the,selves deter,ine, it has si,ilarl+ violated the principle of non-dele0abilit+ of
le0islative po/er 3 insofar as it has created a s+ste, of bud0etin0 /herein ite,s are not
textuali9ed into the appropriations bill, it has flouted the prescribed procedure of present,ent
and, in the process, denied the President the po/er to veto ite,s 3 insofar as it has diluted the
effectiveness of con0ressional oversi0ht b+ 0ivin0 le0islators a sta$e in the affairs of bud0et
execution, an aspect of 0overnance /hich the+ ,a+ be called to ,onitor and scrutini9e, the
s+ste, has e6uall+ i,paired public accountabilit+ 3 insofar as it has authori9ed le0islators, /ho
are national officers, to intervene in affairs of purel+ local nature, despite the existence of
capable local institutions, it has li$e/ise subverted 0enuine local autono,+ 3 and a0ain, insofar
as it has conferred to the President the po/er to appropriate funds intended b+ la/ for ener0+-
related purposes onl+ to other purposes he ,a+ dee, fit as /ell as other public funds under the
broad classification of Apriorit+ infrastructure develop,ent pro7ects,A it has once ,ore
trans0ressed the principle of non-dele0abilit+.
.or as lon0 as this nation adheres to the rule of la/, an+ of the ,ultifarious unconstitutional
,ethods and ,echanis,s the Court has herein pointed out should never a0ain be adopted in an+
s+ste, of 0overnance, b+ an+ na,e or for,, b+ an+ se,blance or si,ilarit+, b+ an+ influence or
effect. Disconcertin0 as it is to thin$ that a s+ste, so constitutionall+ unsound has ,onu,entall+
endured, the Court ur0es the people and its co-ste/ards in 0overn,ent to loo$ for/ard /ith the
opti,is, of chan0e and the a/areness of the past. At a ti,e of 0reat civic unrest and vociferous
public debate, the Court ferventl+ hopes that its Decision toda+, /hile it ,a+ not pur0e all the
/ron0s of societ+ nor brin0 bac$ /hat has been lost, 0uides this nation to the path for0ed b+ the
Constitution so that no one ,a+ heretofore detract fro, its cause nor stra+ fro, its course. After
all, this is the CourtOs bounden dut+ and no otherOs.
D<ERE."RE, the petitions are PAR#;J BRAN#ED. n vie/ of the constitutional violations
discussed in this Decision, the Court hereb+ declares as 1NC"N!##1#"NA;2 %a& the entire
-('4 PDA. Article3 %b& all le0al provisions of past and present Con0ressional Por$ Barrel ;a/s,
such as the previous PDA. and CD. Articles and the various Con0ressional nsertions, /hich
authori9eFd le0islators @ /hether individuall+ or collectivel+ or0ani9ed into co,,ittees @ to
intervene, assu,e or participate in an+ of the various post-enact,ent sta0es of the bud0et
execution, such as but not li,ited to the areas of pro7ect identification, ,odification and revision
of pro7ect identification, fund release andFor fund reali0n,ent, unrelated to the po/er of
con0ressional oversi0ht3 %c& all le0al provisions of past and present Con0ressional Por$ Barrel
;a/s, such as the previous PDA. and CD. Articles and the various Con0ressional nsertions,
/hich conferFred personal, lu,p-su, allocations to le0islators fro, /hich the+ are able to fund
specific pro7ects /hich the+ the,selves deter,ine3 %d& all infor,al practices of si,ilar i,port
and effect, /hich the Court si,ilarl+ dee,s to be acts of 0rave abuse of discretion a,ountin0 to
lac$ or excess of 7urisdiction3 and %e& the phrases %'& Aand for such other purposes as ,a+ be
hereafter directed b+ the PresidentA under !ection = of Presidential Decree No. 8'( and %-& Ato
finance the priorit+ infrastructure develop,ent pro7ectsA under !ection '- of Presidential Decree
No. '=:8, as a,ended b+ Presidential Decree No. '884, for both failin0 the sufficient standard
test in violation of the principle of non-dele0abilit+ of le0islative po/er.
Accordin0l+, the CourtOs te,porar+ in7unction dated !epte,ber '(, -('4 is hereb+ declared to
be PERMANEN#. #hus, the disburse,entFrelease of the re,ainin0 PDA. funds allocated for the
+ear -('4, as /ell as for all previous +ears, and the funds sourced fro, %'& the Mala,pa+a
.unds under the phrase Aand for such other purposes as ,a+ be hereafter directed b+ the
PresidentA pursuant to !ection = of Presidential Decree No. 8'(, and %-& the Presidential !ocial
.und under the phrase Ato finance the priorit+ infrastructure develop,ent pro7ectsA pursuant to
!ection '- of Presidential Decree No. '=:8, as a,ended b+ Presidential Decree No. '884, /hich
are, at the ti,e this Decision is pro,ul0ated, not covered b+ Notice of Cash Allocations %NCAs&
but onl+ b+ !pecial Allot,ent Release "rders %!AR"s&, /hether obli0ated or not, are hereb+
EN>"NED. #he re,ainin0 PDA. funds covered b+ this per,anent in7unction shall not be
disbursedFreleased but instead reverted to the unappropriated surplus of the 0eneral fund, /hile
the funds under the Mala,pa+a .unds and the Presidential !ocial .und shall re,ain therein to be
utili9ed for their respective special purposes not other/ise declared as unconstitutional.
"n the other hand, due to i,proper recourse and lac$ of proper substantiation, the Court hereb+
DENE! petitionersO pra+er see$in0 that the Executive !ecretar+ andFor the Depart,ent of
Bud0et and Mana0e,ent be ordered to provide the public and the Co,,ission on Audit
co,plete listsFschedules or detailed reports related to the avail,ents and utili9ation of the funds
sub7ect of these cases. PetitionersO access to official docu,ents alread+ available and of public
record /hich are related to these funds ,ust, ho/ever, not be prohibited but ,erel+ sub7ected to
the custodianOs reasonable re0ulations or an+ valid statutor+ prohibition on the sa,e. #his denial
is /ithout pre7udice to a proper ,anda,us case /hich the+ or the Co,,ission on Audit ,a+
choose to pursue throu0h a separate petition.
#he Court also DENE! petitioners pra+er to order the inclusion of the funds sub7ect of these
cases in the bud0etar+ deliberations of Con0ress as the sa,e is a ,atter left to the prero0ative of
the political branches of 0overn,ent.
.inall+, the Court hereb+ DREC#! all prosecutorial or0ans of the 0overn,ent to, /ithin the
bounds of reasonable dispatch, investi0ate and accordin0l+ prosecute all 0overn,ent officials
andFor private individuals for possible cri,inal offenses related to the irre0ular, i,proper andFor
unla/ful disburse,entFutili9ation of all funds under the Por$ Barrel !+ste,.
#his Decision is i,,ediatel+ executor+ but prospective in effect.
!" "RDERED.