The Court renders this Decision to rectify an error which has persisted
in the chronicles of our history. In the final analysis, the Court must strike
down the Pork Barrel System as unconstitutional in view of the inherent
defects in the rules within which it operates.
(1)To recount, insofar as it has allowed legislators to wield, in varying gradations, non-oversight, post enactment authority in vital areas of budget execution, the system has violated the principle of separation of powers;
(2)insofar as it has conferred unto legislators the power of appropriation by giving them personal,
discretionary funds from which they are able to fund specific projects which
they themselves determine, it has similarly violated the principle of non-delegability of legislative power;
(3) insofar as it has created a system of budgeting wherein items are not textualized into the appropriations bill, it has flouted the prescribed procedure of presentment and, in the process,
denied the President the power to veto items;
(4) insofar as it has diluted the effectiveness of congressional oversight by giving legislators a stake in the
affairs of budget execution, an aspect of governance which they may be
called to monitor and scrutinize, the system has equally impaired public
accountability; insofar as it has authorized legislators, who are national
officers, to intervene in affairs of purely local nature, despite the existence of
capable local institutions, it has likewise subverted genuine local autonomy;
and again,
(5)insofar as it has conferred to the President the power to
appropriate funds intended by law for energy-related purposes only to other
purposes he may deem fit as well as other public funds under the broad
classification of "priority infrastructure development projects," it has once
more transgressed the principle of non-delegability.
For as long as this nation adheres to the rule of law, any of the
multifarious unconstitutional methods and mechanisms the Court has herein
pointed out should never again be adopted in any system of governance, by
any name or form, by any semblance or similarity, by any influence or
effect. Disconcerting as it is to think that a system so constitutionally
unsound has monumentally endured, the Court urges the people and its co-stewards
in government to look forward with the optimism of change and
the awareness of the past. At a time of great civic unrest and vociferous
public debate, the Court fervently hopes that its Decision today, while it may
not purge all the wrongs of society nor bring back what has been lost, guides
this nation to the path forged by the Constitution so that no one may
heretofore detract from its cause nor stray from its course. After all, this is
the Court's bounden duty and no other's.
in the chronicles of our history. In the final analysis, the Court must strike
down the Pork Barrel System as unconstitutional in view of the inherent
defects in the rules within which it operates.
(1)To recount, insofar as it has allowed legislators to wield, in varying gradations, non-oversight, post enactment authority in vital areas of budget execution, the system has violated the principle of separation of powers;
(2)insofar as it has conferred unto legislators the power of appropriation by giving them personal,
discretionary funds from which they are able to fund specific projects which
they themselves determine, it has similarly violated the principle of non-delegability of legislative power;
(3) insofar as it has created a system of budgeting wherein items are not textualized into the appropriations bill, it has flouted the prescribed procedure of presentment and, in the process,
denied the President the power to veto items;
(4) insofar as it has diluted the effectiveness of congressional oversight by giving legislators a stake in the
affairs of budget execution, an aspect of governance which they may be
called to monitor and scrutinize, the system has equally impaired public
accountability; insofar as it has authorized legislators, who are national
officers, to intervene in affairs of purely local nature, despite the existence of
capable local institutions, it has likewise subverted genuine local autonomy;
and again,
(5)insofar as it has conferred to the President the power to
appropriate funds intended by law for energy-related purposes only to other
purposes he may deem fit as well as other public funds under the broad
classification of "priority infrastructure development projects," it has once
more transgressed the principle of non-delegability.
For as long as this nation adheres to the rule of law, any of the
multifarious unconstitutional methods and mechanisms the Court has herein
pointed out should never again be adopted in any system of governance, by
any name or form, by any semblance or similarity, by any influence or
effect. Disconcerting as it is to think that a system so constitutionally
unsound has monumentally endured, the Court urges the people and its co-stewards
in government to look forward with the optimism of change and
the awareness of the past. At a time of great civic unrest and vociferous
public debate, the Court fervently hopes that its Decision today, while it may
not purge all the wrongs of society nor bring back what has been lost, guides
this nation to the path forged by the Constitution so that no one may
heretofore detract from its cause nor stray from its course. After all, this is
the Court's bounden duty and no other's.
No comments:
Post a Comment