In 2014, Congress enacted an appropriation law containing a provision that gives individual legislators the discretion to determine, post-enactment, how much funds would go to a specific project or beneficiary which they themselves also determine. Consequently, disbursements were made in the interim pursuant thereto.
Eventually, Mr. Z filed a petition questioning the constitutionality of the statutory provision on the grounds that it violates the separation of powers principle.
On the other hand, certain Congressman argued that there was nothing wrong with the provision because, after all, the power to appropriate belongs to Congress.
(a) Rule on the arguments of the parties. (2.5%)
(b) Assuming that the provision is declared unconstitutional, should the disbursements made pursuant thereto be returned in light of the doctrine of operative fact? Explain. (2.5%)
(a) Petition should be granted. Answer
Under the 1987 Constitution and jurisprudence, the separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of government. It is the duty of the Legislature to make the law; of the Executive to execute the law; and of the Judiciary to construe the law. Rule
In the case at bar, the questioned law violates the separation of powers as it granted the Legislature the authority to enforce the law. However, such power to execute the law is exclusively with the Executive. Apply
Thus, the petition should be granted on the ground that the la...
Already a subscriber? Log in below. Not yet a member? Subscribe.