(Eagle News) — Anti-pork barrel advocates on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court (SC) to declare unconstitutional certain provisions in the 2015 national budget, including National Budget Circular No. 559 (NBC 559) and some provisions under the Special Purpose Fund, that contravened earlier decisions of the high court against the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP).
The group which filed the petition on Tuesday, Sept. 1, was led by former national treasurer Leonor Briones of the anti-corruption watchdog Social Watch Philippines. They asked the high court to issue a temporary restraining order on the implementation of Sections 70 and 73 of the 2015 General Appropriations Act (GAA) and special provisions for special purpose funds.
In a statement, Briones said: “We are filing the petition before the High Court to take action on the unconstitutionality of the spending for the year 2015 in contraventions of the decisions on the PDAF and the DAP.
“ We believe that the Court should intervene because their decisions have been ignored. Not only that, the Constitution has been ignored and laid aside as well,” she said.
The group asked the SC to stop government spending of lump sum and discretionary funds in this year’s budget which was contrary to the Constitution, as well as to earlier decisions of the Supreme Court.
Section 70 defines savings as portions or balances of any unreleased appropriations in the GAA that were not obligated. Sec. 73 contains rules on the realignment of allotment classes and re-prioritization of items of appropriations.
In the case of NBC 559, the petitioners said it should be declared unconstitutional since it was issued in line with Section 73 of the 2015 GAA.
The petitioners urged the SC to declare these provisions in the budget as unconstitutional, citing earlier decisions of the high tribunal voiding the PDAF and key acts under the DAP.
“Petitioners call on this Honorable Court to prevent the Legislative and the Executive from making the Constitution or the ruling in the Belgica or Araullo illusory. Whether it is through deceptive or creative schemes, the Executive and the Legislative branches should be prevented from doing indirectly what they cannot legally do directly,” the petition stated.
The Belgica and Araullo decisions pertain to the declaration of unconstitutionality of the PDAF and certain practices under the DAP, respectively.
The other petitioners in the case are lawyer Ramon Acebedo Pedroza, Frances Irene Rallonza Bretana and Mai Palacio Paner who are members of the Scrap the Pork Network; Rodolfo Aranas Fabricante of the Overseas Filipino Workers Chamber of Commerce and Industry Inc.; Amorsolo Competente, president of Alert and Concerned Employees for Better SSS; David Diwa, president of National Labor Union; Eleuterio Tuazon, president of the Philippine Association of Labor Unions; Bienvenido Lorque, member of the Board of Directors of United Filipino Seafarer; Leodegario De Guzman, president of the Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino; Diego Landagan Magpantay of the Citizens Crime Watch-Anti-Corruption Task Force; Alain del Pascua, president of the Katipunan ng mga Anag ng Bayan All Filipino Democratic Movement; Sanlakas through its president Marie Marguerite Lopez and secretary general Jose Aaron Pedroza Jr.; and the Metro Manila Vendors Alliance-Quezon City represented by its secretary general Flora Santos.
Named respondents were Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr., Budget Secretary Florencio Abad, Senate President Franklin Drilon, and House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte.
Former senator Panfilo Lacson accompanied the group in going to the high court to file the petition.
In a statement, Lacson explained that the provisions challenged in the petition are contrary to the rulings of the SC in the PDAF and DAP cases.
“Kontrang kontra ito sa Supreme Court ruling, actually hindi lang sa SC ruling kundi pati sa Constitution. Maliwanag kasi ang probisyon sa Saligang Batas, yung Article 6, Section 25 , Paragraph 5 na yung hindi pwedeng mag-transfer ng appropriations,” he said.
Lacson added: “Ibig sabihin, savings lang ang pwedeng i-transfer at hindi mo na pwedeng gawin sa kalagitnaan ng taon at ini-specify dun na ang President, Senate President, Speaker of the House, Chief Justice at heads of constitutional commissions lang ang pwedeng mag-transfer, hindi yung nade-delegate ito o gampanan ng Cabinet secretaries,” Lacson said.
Aside from Sections 70 and 73 of the 2015 GAA, the petitioners named the provisions of the Special Purpose Fund that should be declared unconstitutional, particularly the E-Government Fund (for strategic information and communication technology projects), the International Commitment Fund, the Miscellaneous Personnel Benefit Funds, the National Disaster Risk Reduction Management Fund, the Pension and Gratuity Fund and the Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Program Fund.