1. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUPRBIIB COURT
MANILA
Bll BAIIC
SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIE'IY (SJS)
PRESIDENT SAMSON S. ALCANTARA,
Petitioner,
- versus - G. R.IIO. 208493
HONORABLE FRANKUM DRIWN, in his
capacity as Senate President, and
HONORABLE FEUCIANO BELMONTE, JR.
in his capacity as Speaker of the House of
Representatives.
PROBIBITIOR
Respondents.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
REPLY
PBTITIOBBR SJS PRESIDENT SAMSON S. ALCANTARA
respectfully alleges, in Reply to respondents' Consolidated Comment,
copy ofwhich was received by him on September 25, 2013, that:
11} Petitioner does not question the authority of the political
branches of government to undertake reforms purportedly to address
abuses of the PDAF. But he cannot help asking: WHY ONLY NOW?
When the system, which has spawned widespread, pervasive and
systemic corruption in this land, should have been eliminated years ago.
By their inaction or tolerance, the system has been allowed to Oourish,
resulting in the loss of billions of the taxpayers' money, huge amounts of
which have even dumped in the bathtub of a Janet Napoles. Indeed,
respondents have no reason to resist intervention by this Honorable
Court.
12) Petitioner does not seek a judicial solution of this plague called
PDAF. He merely pleads that this Honorable Court, in the exercise of the

2. G. & NQ. ••RIREPLY
judicial power, allocate constitutiOnal boundaries, for the guidance of
respondents who are supposedly crafting refonns, so that the same will
be in conformity with the fundamental law, and for the peace of mind of
the Filipino people who are massfug in the streets and demanding the
abolition of the Pork Barrel. Petitioner does not believe that, as hinted by
respondents, this Honorable Court may make a Cflasty" constitutional
interpretation.
f3) Obviously, to diffuse public outrage, respondents have
reportedly abolished the PDAF or are about to do so. But there is no
assurance, considering the huge monetary benefits derived therefrom by
members of Congress, that such supposed abolition is not purely
cosmetic; it could be resurrected in another fonn and under a different
name. Petitioner therefore earnestly urges this Honorable Court to
decide the petitions on the merits. The Court can decide a question
otherwise moot and academic but capable of repetition yet evading
review. (Sarmiento et al vs. Treasurers of the Philippines et al., G. R.
Nos. 125680 and 126313, September4, 2001)
(4) It is true that this Honorable Court in the PHILCONSA case,
decided in 1994, upheld the constitutionality of the PDAF, then known
as the Countrywide Development Fund or CDF. It was therein ruled that
the procedure of proposing and identifying by members of Congress of
particular projects or activities was •imaginative as it is innovative." At
that time the allocation per member of the House of Representatives was
only P12,000,000.00 and P18,000,000.00 per senator. These amounts
have in 2013 ballooned to P'lo,ooo,ooo.oo per member of the House of
Representatives and P200,000,000.00 per Senator. Surely, these will
double or triple in the near future, unless the pernicious practice is
stopped now by this Honorable Court.

3. G. R. NQ. MtNIREPLY
(St Worse, the members of Congress have used their "imaginative"
and "innovative" traits to siphon PDAF funds for ghost projects or useless
activities and through fake NGOs misappropriate billions of taxpayers'
money to support their political activities, insure their reelection, and
perpetuate their political dynasties. Revenues collected through taxation
should be devoted only for a public purpose. To lay with one hand the
power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other
to bestow it on favored individuals is nonetheless a robbery though it
was done under the forms of law and is called taxation. (Citizens
Savings and Loan Association of Cleveland, Ohio vs. City of Topeka, 20
Wall (US) 655, 663, 22 L Ed. 455)
(6) The constitutionality of the PDAF was also sustained by this
Honorable Court in LAMP et al vs. The Secretary of Budget and
Management et al., G. R. No. 164987, April 24, 2012, but mainly
because the petition was "seriously wanting in establishing that
individual Members of Congress receive and thereafter spend funds out
of PDAF' and "surmises and conjectures are not sufficient for the Court
to strike down the practice for being offensive to the Constitution.• But
"surmises• and •conjectures• are now things of the past. Hereto attached
as ADaex "A• is a list of observations of the Commission on Audit in
its Special Audits Office Report on the PDAF for the years 2007 to 2009,
strongly indicating anomalies and misuse of the funds. A statute valid at
one time may become void at another time because of altered
circumstances. (Central Bank employees Association, Inc. vs. Bangko
Sentral Ng Pilipinas et al., G. R. No. 148208, December 15, 2004)
(7) Respondents aver that the repol'ted abuses of the PDAF are
problems of implementation and do not go into the constitutionality of
the law. Petitioner respectful)y submits that the Pork Barrel System, as

4. Q. & NO, aatpftEPLY
embodied by the PDAF, poses dangers which cannot be solved through
mere prosecution of the offenders. The process can take years. Former
Chief Justice Reynato Puno condemns the system as an "evil" and
should be abolished. The Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines
(CBCB) calls it an act of terrorism. It is the mother of all scandals and
very destructive of society. The characters involved therein are not
ordinary citizens but members of Congress who should be looked up to
as models of honesty and integrity but are now being exposed as serious
violators of the very laws they themselves have enacted, and raiders of
the public treasury. As a matter of fact, they themselves are now
quarrelling over the alleged use of the PDAF in connection with the
impeachment of former Chief Justice Renato Corona. Most certainly, if
the system is susceptible of improper or illegal implementation, the best
way to solve the problem would be to totally eliminate it. If it permits a
continuing and blatant violation or circumvention of express
constitutional mandates, it should be outlawed without further delay.
The monster itself should be slain at once.
f81 For this Honorable Court to lift the TRO would be to allow the
release of millions of taxes for very questionable projects, activities and
transactions, thereby enabling the lawmakers to still continue with the
pernicious practice caUed Pork Barrel, which ·they themselves have
supposedly deleted from the 2014 General Appropriations Act. The grave
and continuing injury to the Filipino people should now be stopped.
f91 Respondents, by asking for a partial lifting of the TRO, based
on humanitarian grounds, h&s in effect admitted the validity thereof.
WIIICRBI'ORB, it is respectfully prayed that respondents motion to
lift the TRO be denied, and that the reliefs sought in the Petition be
granted.

5. G. R. NO. 2011131REPLY
Petitioner prays for other just and equitable relief.
Manila, Philippines, October _1_, 2013.
SAIISOK 8. ALCAIITARA ,.-
Petitioner
Suite 1402 14th Floor
Manila Astral Tower
1330 Taft Ave. cor. P. Faura St.
Ermita, Manila
IBP 933677/3-11-2013/Abra
PI'R 1696673/3-7-2013/Mla.
RoD No. 12841
MCLE Exemption No. UI-001807/10-6-10
Tel. Nos.: 5216984/4980382
COPY FURlOSJIBD: BY REGISTERED MAIL.
PERSONAL SERVICE CANNOT BE MADE DUE TO
( A JMME CONSTRAINTS
[/fMESSENGER NOT AVAILABlE
( ) HEAVY TRAFFIC
[ ] INCLEMENT WEATHER
~/
Tile 8ollcltor a.-~Office of the Solicitor eral
134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village
1229 Makati City
ONCO Aatoaio11a Beda B. Bei&Jca, et al.
PetitioneninG.R.No.208566
Suite 704 Trinity Building
T. M. Kalaw Avenue, Manila
Peclrlto .. Repoaaceao
Petitioner in UDK 14951
No. 1 Sta. Lucia Street
Barangay Kapitolyo
1603 Pasig City

6. EXCERPTS FROM
COA SPECIAL AUDITS OFFICE REPORT No. 2012-03
1) Releases out of PDAF were not efficiently monitored and tracked, if at all.
Despite repeated requests, the DBM failed to provide the summary of releases per
legislator and lA out of PDAF. (Page 33)
2) While DBM provided summary of releases out ofVILP in the amount of P32.347
Billion, around P69.261 Billion were found in Audit to have been also released to different
DPWH ROs and DEOs during CYs 2007 to 2009. This brings total releases out of the VILP to
P101.608 Billion, which already exceeded the combined appropriation of P50.874 Billion
for the 3-year period by P50.734 Billion. (Page 34)
3) Amounts released for projects identified by 74 legislators significantly exceeded
their respective allocations. (Page 35)
4) Funds were released by the DBM even for projects outside the legislative
districts ofthe sponsoring Congressmen. (Page 38)
5) Significant amounts of funds were released by the DBM to lAs without the lAs'
respective endorsements and considering their mandated functions, and administrative
and technical capabilities to implement project. Thus. the funds were either merely
transferred to NGOs with implementation of projects hardly monitored or funds remained
unused as of audit date. NGOs are not included among the lAs of PDAF as identified in the
GAA, hence, such transfers are without legal basis. (Page 39)
6) The implementation of most of the livelihood projects was not undertaken by the
lAs themselves, but by the NGOs endorsed by the legislators. inspite of the absence of any
appropriation law or ordinance as required under GPPB Resolution No. 12-2007. (Page 46)
7) Selection of NGOs were not compliant with the provision of COA Circular No.
2007-001 and GPPB Resolution No. 12-2007 and their implementation of projects was
merely covered by MOA not complaint with existing regulations. (Page 48)
8) Even worse, all the 82 NGOs, entrusted with the implementation of 772 projects
amounting to P6.156 Billion. along with their suppliers and reported benefidaries, are
either unknown or cannot be located at their given addresses, or have given non-existent
addresses, or addresses traced in a mere shanty or in high-end residential units without
any NGO signage, or submitted questionable documents, or failed to liquidate or fully
document utilization of funds. This was aggravated by- the denial of a number of suppliers
and recipients/beneficiaries, and even sponsoring legislators on their participation on the
reported projects. (Page 49)
9) Irregularity in the implementation of livelihood projects was also manifested in
the purported multiple attendan<;e of the same beneficiaries to the same or similar
trainings in as many as 15 times and multiple receipts of the same or similar kits and/or
conduct of the same or similar trainings for several times in the same barangays.
Moreover, some beneficiari~ who claimed to have attended the livelihood trainings, did
not, in any way, use such training in establishing a business. (Page 61-62)

7. 10) Releases by TRC to two LGUs to conduct training for the establishment and
management of rubber plantation and distribution ofrubber seedlings amounting to PlO.O
Million remained unliquidated. The documents submitted to the Team upon request were
also found deficient. In addition. the submitted documents by DA-RFU XI for the transfer of
funds to another LGU for the implementation of livelihood project was also not supported
with liquation documents. (Page 69)
11) Livelihood items procured by three DA-RFUs in the total amount of P152.408
Million were not compliant with the provisions of RA No. 9184. These were not properly
advertised and, in several instances, awarded to suppliers, identified by the legislator
and/or of questionable legal and physical existence. In some other cases, a number of
items procured are no longer eligible under PDAF and were not supported with
distribution list. The submitted distribution list for one project is even questionable as a
number of recipients denied receipt of the items purportedly distributed or otherwise
cannot be located at their given addresses. The items procured by DSWD-RFO Ill for Day
Care Center were also not eligible for funding under PDAF and not the priority of, the
recipients. (Page 71)
12) Funds amounting to P107.024 Million were released by six lAs to various
cooperatives and associations to finance their respective micro financing activities andjor
procure various equipment and supplies for their own operations. DPWH-Tarlac 1st DEO
also constructed project for the use of Cooperative Bank of Tarlac. The cooperatives are
private institutions composed of private individuals. Hence, such use of funds is
questionable as it does not come within the purview of public purpose. Moreover, the
implementation ofsome ofthese projects is questionable as a number of recipients denied
receiving the items. (Pages 80-81)
13) Loans granted by DSWD-RFO XI to a number of SEA Kaunlaran Associations
(SKAs) members were not strictly monitored. A number of borrowers were either not
paying on time or not paying at all as of September 9. 2010. The existence of a number
others cannot even be established as they are either unknown or have moved out from
their given addresses or the addresses given were insufficient. (Page 86)
14) Forty-one projects costing P1.393 Billion implemented by DPWH ROs and
DEOs, and selected LGUs were found deficient by P46.262 Million. These were either not
strictly constructed in accordance with plans and specifications or otherwise included
excessive quantities of RPS and other construction materials. (Page 89)
15) Fifty-four projects costing P161.498 Million were constructed on private
properties without documents to support the turn over of such properties to the
government, if at all. The prohibition on the use of public funds for the development of
private properties was already settled by the Supreme Court under "Pascual vs. Secretary
ofthe Public Works"- G. R. No. L-10405 dated December 29, 1960. (Page 92)
16) Contract costs of a number of projects were excessive by P100.989 Million due
to erroneous application of rate for Item 302, double application of indirect costs, splitting
of contracts. use of excessive rental rates, and inappropriate unit cost for excavation and
embankment. (Page 95)
a) The rate applied in computing the quantity of Item 302 in 37
projects was erroneous resulting in excessive quantitates costing P4.953
million. (Page 96)

8. b) While the unit cost for asphalt used in 131 projects was already
inclusive of indirect cost the unit cost was again subjected to indirect cost
resulting in cost difference of P90.340 Million. (Page 98)
c) The contract for the restoration of damaged revetment/dredging
of flood control of Meycauayan River was split into eight contracts contrary
to law, thus, allowing the allocation of higher indirect cost. Moreover, the
unit costs used for excavation and embankment were also inappropriate for
the types of materials excavated and used as embankment. while equipment
rental rates exceeded ACEL rates. The rental rates applied in 151 other
projects also exceeded the ACEL rates. All these deficiencies resulted in
combined excess costs of P10.257 Million. (Page 104)
d) Two other projects implemented by the City Government of Las
Piiias applied erroneous indirect cost which resulted in cost difference of
P253,000. (Page 109)
17) At least 90 projects implemented during CYs 2007 to 2009 were either
unutilizedfnot fully utilized indicating that the funds could have been used for more
urgently needed projects, or not property maintained and in the state of deterioration, or
construction not properly planned and thereupon replaced or already in the process of
replacement (Page 110)
18) The cost allocated for safety and health, and other miscellaneous items were
not computed in accordance with DPWH DO No. 56, series of 2005. These items, which
include procurement of various furniture, equipment and vehicles, were included in
infrastructure contracts in lump sum amounts without detailed computation, in
percentages ranging from 0.013 percent to 11.405 percent for each item and billed by the
contractors as programmed. This included procurement of motor vehicles without the
required approval of the President (Page 112)
19) Similar projects to be completed within almost the same time and at the same
cost were provided special items in lump sum and varying amounts. (Page 114)
20) Disbursements amounting to P1.289 Billion were not compliant with the
provisions of R. A No. 9184 and other existing rules and regulations, with substantial
amounts supported with questionable documents. Moreover, transactions amounting to
P234.213 Mi11ion were not dowmented. The corresponding DVs cannot be submitted to
the Team despite repeated requests. (Page 120)
21) Significant releases to LGUs were used for purposes no longer within the menu
prescribed in the GAA Moreover. financial assistance for various purposes granted to
various individuals and associations were released without establishing the need for
assistance. Expenses also included those pertaining to the operations of the LGUs and
other government offices including the Offices ofthe Congressional Districts. (Page 126)
ooOoo