Philconsa was the first case where a constitutional challenge - TopicsExpress



          

Philconsa was the first case where a constitutional challenge against a Pork Barrel provision, i.e, the 1994 CDF Article, was resolved by the Court. To properly understand its context, petitioners‘ postur ing was that ―the power given to the [M]embers of Congress to propose and identify projects and activities to be funded by the [CDF] is an encroachment by the legislature on executive power, since said power in an appropriation act is in implementation of the law ‖and that―the proposal and identification of the projects do not involve the making of laws or the repeal and amendment thereof, the only function given to the Congress by the Constitution.‖154 In deference to the foregoing submissions, the Court reached the following main conclusions: one, under the Constitution, the power of appropriation,or the ―power of the purse,‖ belongs to Congress; two, the power of appropriation carries with it the power to specify the project or activity to be funded under theappropriation law and it can be detailed and as broad asCongress wants it to be; and,three, the proposals and identifications made by Members of Congress are merely recommendatory. At once, it is apparent that the Philconsa resolution wasa limited response to a separation of powers problem, specifically on the propriety of conferring post-enactment identification authority to Members of Congress. On the contrary, the present cases call for a more holistic examination of (a ) theinter-relation between the CDF and PDAF Articles with each other, formative as they are of the entire ―Pork Barrel System‖ as well as (b) the intra-relation of post-enactment measures contained within a particular CDF or PDAF Article, including not only those related to the area of project identification but also to the areas of fund release and realignment. The complexity of the issues and the broader legal analyses herein warranted may be, therefore, considered as a powerful countervailing reason against a wholesale application of the stare decisis principle. sc.judiciary.gov.ph/microsite/pdaf/
Posted on: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 22:34:50 +0000

Trending Topics



Recently Viewed Topics




© 2015