SC declares “lump-sum discretionary funds” in 2014 GAA as constitutional

(Eagle News)–The Supreme Court on Tuesday, Oct. 8, declared as constitutional the “lump-sum discretionary funds” in the 2014 General Appropriations Act which then-Manila Councilor Greco Belgica argued was pork.

In dismissing for lack of merit the petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Belgica, the SC noted that his reliance on the 2013 Belgica vs Ochoa case to argue that lump-sum appropriations are unconstitutional  was “misplaced.”

In its 2013 decision, the SC abolished the pork barrel system as the Priority Development Assistance Fund in the 2013 GAA and similar informal practices that allowed individual legislators to participate in the execution of the budget through post-enactment measures.

The SC said its 2013 decision, however, also “discussed what is a singular correspondence and distinguished what is a prohibited lump-sum.”

“An appropriation may be validly apportioned into component percentages or values; however, it is crucial that each percentage or value must be allocated for its own corresponding purpose for such component to be considered as a proper line-item,” the SC quoted the 2013 decision as saying.

In the case of the assailed appropriations in the 2014 GAA then, the SC said they were constitutional because they were “valid items with discernible singular appropriation purpose in compliance with the rule on singular correspondence.”

The unprogrammed fund’s purpose, for instance, the SC said, was to fund the identified programs; the contingent fund, to provide funding to meet contingencies or programs yet inexistent and unforeseen during budget authorization; the e-government fund, to fund the e-government program that subsumes the strategic ICT projects of various government agencies; and the local government support fund, to provide financial assistance to LGUs.

The requirement of singular correspondence does not mean that all lump-sum appropriations are unconstitutional per se, the SC added.