Supreme Court declares PDAF unconstitutional

fayt · **on:** November 19, 2013, 03:14:45 PM

(Updated 2:33 p.m.) The Supreme Court on Tuesday declared as unconstitutional the controversial Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), or more commonly known as the pork barrel.

SC spokesperson Theodore Te said the high court voted 14-0-1 against the PDAF, the multimillion peso discretionary fund received by lawmakers every year.

Petitioners have challenged the constitutionality of the PDAF before the high court following reports of its widespread and systematic misuse by some members of Congress in cahoots with private individuals.

Three incumbent senators and several former members of the House of Representatives have been named respondents in a plunder complaint filed with the Office of the Ombudsman in connection with the alleged P10-billion pork barrel scam.

The scam, allegedly masterminded by businesswoman Janet Lim-Napoles, involved the funneling of pork barrel funds to bogus non-government organizations. Public outrage over the anomaly has resulted in the largest protest gathering under the three-year-old Aquino administration.

Named respondents in the petitions were Senate President Franklin Drilon and House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr.

Senators can get up to P200 million each in PDAF every year, while members of the House of Representatives are entitled to P70 million each.

During the oral arguments at the high court last month, Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza, in defense of the PDAF, asked the court to lift the temporary restraining order it imposed on the release of the funds.

He reasoned that the scholars and indigent patients that were subsidized through PDAF funds were the ones suffering from the TRO.

But Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio suggested that the President’s Social Fund, the discretionary fund of the President, can instead be tapped for indigent patients and augment scholarship programs. — KBK, GMA News

My Board · « **on:** November 19, 2013, 03:14:45 PM »

Lord Nok Von Hauten · **Reply #1 on:** November 19, 2013, 04:39:45 PM

Ayos ito, tama kaya ang sinabi ng court para sa mga mambabatas... Ang tanong bakit ngayun lang binaba ito at hindi pa nung mga panahon nila ramos, erap at arroyo... hmmm

Kung kailan maraming umaangal saka sila nagpapabango...

kiraxmisax · **Reply #2 on:** November 19, 2013, 09:34:34 PM

Kahit nadeclare na unconstitutional ang PDAF, sana wag makalimutan na nung meron pang PDAF may mga napunta sa mga bogus NGOs at may mga kailangan managot.

My Board · « **Reply #2 on:** November 19, 2013, 09:34:34 PM »

xxxchoholic Rai ♥ · **Reply #3 on:** November 19, 2013, 09:41:44 PM

finally natapos na ito i think tama ang decision nila

pero medyo huli na rin dahil nagastos at nabulsa na yun karamihan

ng funds sa PDAF na yan ngayon

sent from abacus using babytalk 12000

Itachi101 · **Reply #4 on:** November 19, 2013, 10:52:46 PM

yan supreme court na ang nag sabi

My Board · « **Reply #4 on:** November 19, 2013, 10:52:46 PM »

sugunoy · **Reply #5 on:** November 19, 2013, 11:29:04 PM

finally.. but the damage has been done...
stillm i think the crooks will find a way to plunder money.. baka palitan lang ang pangalan.. there are so many flaws on our constitution (according to my prof)...

charliehouse · **Reply #6 on:** November 30, 2013, 08:07:49 PM

Contrary to the popular belief na tapos na ang usapin ng PDAF dahil SC na ang nagdeclare, SC in essence did not declare the "pdaf" or "daf" unconstitutional for the first time, since there were already past decisions declaring a system similar to pdaf and daf consitutional or unconstitutional (since flip flopping was present in those decisions) and this decision might also be a part of those line of decisions since the legislative can always make a system similar to daf at irerename lang nila ang system, the same dog with a different collar ika nga.

tonistork · **Reply #7 on:** November 30, 2013, 08:40:00 PM

pag walang ng PDAF, malamang mababawasan na ang mga gustong tumakbo sa senado at kongreso.

charliehouse · **Reply #8 on:** November 30, 2013, 08:57:20 PM

^ technically hindi pa rin kasi they can always "remake" pdaf, kahit na mawala ang pdaf by virtue of the decision rendered by SC pwede naman silang gumawa ng isang panibagong systema na kagaya ng pdaf.

fayt · **Reply #9 on:** December 01, 2013, 12:22:13 PM

Quote from: charliehouse on November 30, 2013, 08:57:20 PM

^ technically hindi pa rin kasi they can always "remake" pdaf, kahit na mawala ang pdaf by virtue of the decision rendered by SC pwede naman silang gumawa ng isang panibagong systema na kagaya ng pdaf.

agree, they can remake the term but the function is the same hahaha

tagakalikot · **Reply #10 on:** December 01, 2013, 03:52:57 PM

yan akala natin mga Pinoy wala nang tatakbo sa Congress or mababawasan na
marami paring paraan mga yan, bago baguhin lang nila pangalan at ganon pa rin ang kalakaran

charliehouse · **Reply #11 on:** December 02, 2013, 08:33:20 AM

The problem with this issue is that we fail to identify the problem. The problem here is not pdaf and daf but a more stringent accountability with regard to the disbursement of public funds and prosecution of those magnanakaw sa kaban ng bayan and the best way to do it is to result to public opinion and if not then revolution.

karlkutu · **Reply #12 on:** December 09, 2013, 03:32:28 PM

Sabi nga ni Aling Miriam "thanks God". Mag basa po tayo ng SCRA para mag kakapareho ang pinapanuod nating pelikula.

IORI™ · **Reply #13 on:** December 09, 2013, 07:28:55 PM

dapat tayong maging vigilant everytime .. ang magnanakaw hindi yan natutulog .. nagpplano yan

karlkutu · **Reply #14 on:** December 09, 2013, 07:44:12 PM

Quote from: IORI™ on December 09, 2013, 07:28:55 PM

dapat tayong maging vigilant everytime .. ang magnanakaw hindi yan natutulog .. nagpplano yan

oh yes sir. matatalino mga yan. UP grad pa ang karamihan. hahahahah

My Board · « **Reply #14 on:** December 09, 2013, 07:44:12 PM »