The 2013 Supreme Court decision in Belgica v. Ochoa remains a landmark ruling that declared the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), also known as "pork barrel", unconstitutional. The Court found that PDAF violated fundamental principles of the Constitution, such as the separation of powers, accountability, and transparency. Specifically, it struck down provisions in the General Appropriations Act (GAA) that allowed legislators to exercise discretionary authority over lump-sum funds and to identify projects after the budget had already been enacted.
The Court's decision highlighted two major constitutional violations. First, the PDAF created lump-sum discretionary funds, which lacked the specificity required by the Constitution. The GAA provisions allowed for broad allocations, such as "soft" projects (scholarships, medical assistance) and "hard" projects (infrastructure), without clearly identifying the particular items to be funded. This lack of detail gave legislators wide latitude to decide on project specifics at their discretion, creating fertile ground for corruption and misuse.
Second, the Court found that legislators' ability to determine the use of these funds post-enactment amounted to an unconstitutional exercise of executive powers. The Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse to approve and authorize the budget. However, once the GAA is enacted, the responsibility to execute the budget lies solely with the executive branch. By allowing legislators to identify projects or beneficiaries after the budget’s approval, PDAF violated the separation of powers by enabling lawmakers to encroach on the executive's exclusive role in budget execution.
In the aftermath of the Belgica ruling, the government was forced to abandon the PDAF system and adopt more transparent and detailed line-item budgeting in the GAA. Allocations now have to be specific, detailing particular programs or projects, which limits the discretion of legislators in the use of public funds. Legislators can no longer directly intervene in the execution of the budget after it is approved.
However, a new version of pork barrel has emerged (Pork Barrel 2.0). This operates through an informal referral process where legislators suggest projects or beneficiaries to executive agencies. For instance, a senator or congressman might recommend a list of individuals for scholarships or a specific district for infrastructure development. While the final decision and implementation technically rest with the executive agencies, these recommendations often carry significant weight. This creates a scenario where legislators exercise "soft" influence over budget execution, sidestepping the Belgica prohibition on post-enactment authority.
The mechanics of this referral system allow legislators to maintain indirect control over public funds without formally violating the law. Agencies retain nominal discretion to approve or deny these referrals, but the informal nature of this system makes it difficult to track and scrutinize. Unlike PDAF, which was explicitly detailed in the GAA, Pork Barrel 2.0 operates in a gray area, with no clear guidelines or accountability mechanisms.
In short, Pork Barrel 2.0 works through gentleman's agreements and handshake deals, and not through the formal national budget process.
But how can informal deals be so dependable when there's no formal budgetary mechanism to back it up?
The informal referral system remains reliable for legislators because it operates within the framework of partisan politics and the centralization of political power. Without formal legal authority, referrals depend on the implicit power dynamics between the legislative and executive branches. Political leaders play a decisive role in this system. The President, through the DBM and line agencies, wields the "carrot"—control over fund releases, project approvals, and resource allocation—to ensure cooperation from legislators, especially members of the House of Representatives who intrinsically have insular interests for their districts. This immense "carrot power" enables the President and key executive officials to shape legislative priorities, align congressional support with their policy agenda, and consolidate political control. The threat of withholding benefits ensures that legislators comply with executive preferences, even without formal mechanisms.
Referrals are typically honored when legislators are part of the majority bloc or aligned with the administration’s political and partisan interests. Lawmakers who support the executive's legislative priorities or belong to the President's party are more likely to see their projects approved and implemented by executive agencies. This alignment ensures that referrals translate into tangible benefits for legislators’ constituencies, strengthening their political capital. Conversely, legislators in the minority or those who oppose the administration often find their referrals deprioritized or ignored. This selective honoring of referrals reinforces the role of partisan loyalty in shaping access to public funds and perpetuates the informal nature of the pork barrel system.
Got questions? E-mail us at attorney@geronimo.law or visit our site at www.geronimo.law.
