92 Chasing the Wind: Assessing Philippine Democracy, Second Edition to encroach on the power of other government bodies as well as the employment of delegative authority and the consequent abuse of power. The power over the budget is constitutionally vested in Congress but in practice is exercised by the President. This practice was stopped by the Supreme Court only in 2013. Power over the Budget
“The power of the purse” is vested in the House of Representatives under the 1987 Constitution. Article VI, Section 24 of the constitution states that: All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of public debt, bills of local application, and private bills, shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments. (1987 Constitution of the Philippines, Article VI, Section 24). This constitutional power of the House of Representatives is supposed to vest it the principal role in the budget process. However, as observed by the Human Development Network in its Philippine Human Development Report 2008/2009, it is the executive and not Congress that, by law and practice, actually wields effective power over the purse (p. 31) This practice which started in the era of Martial Law has been incorporated in the Revised Administrative Code and has institutionalized the executive's power to prepare the budget which has allowed the President to control the strategic steps of the process, i.e., budget preparation and execution (Philippine Human Development Report 2008/2009). In the case of Pimentel v. Carague, et al., the question about the rules on budget preparation and execution are deemed by the Supreme Court as a political question. The Court also said that Congress has the power to repeal the Presidential Decree which encroached on the legislative power over the budget (Pimentel v. Carague, et. al. G.R. No. 94571, April 21, 1991). However, in a momentous decision in 2013, the Court overruled this conservative reading of executive power. It ruled that the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or commonly known as “pork barrel” is unconstitutional because it violates the constitutional principles on “ a) separation of powers b) non-delegability of legislative power, c) checks and balances, d) accountability, xxx.” (Greco Antonious Beda B. Belgica, et. al. versus Honorable Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr. et. al., G. R. Nos. 208566, 208493, and 209251, November 19, 2013). Moreover, the Court also ruled that the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) and President Aquino's actions (consolidation of savings, realignment of budget items, and release of such funds) after the approval of the General Appropriations Act are unconstitutional (Maria Carolina P. Araullo, et. al. vs. Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, et. al., G.R. Nos. 209287, 209135, 209136, 209155, 209164, 209260, 209442, 209517, and 209569, July 1, 2014). These decisions are supposed to restore the power over the purse of Congress. Prior to the Court's decision, the extent of the formal power of Congress is