Practice question
An appropriations law authorizes a department to carry out local road repairs. After enactment, individual legislators may select which roads receive funds, and the department cannot release money without their written endorsements. A taxpayer challenges those roles. The legislators say they merely recommend projects and that a department secretary still signs the release. Under Belgica, which assessment is most accurate?
- The roles are invalid post-enactment participation in budget execution; the labels and final executive signature do not cure the intrusion.
- The roles are valid because a recommendation can never affect separation of powers.
- The roles are valid because each legislator possesses Congress’s entire appropriation power individually.
- The roles are valid because any executive participation cures legislative involvement.
- The roles are invalid solely because roads are never a permissible public expenditure.
Legal references
- Belgica v. Ochoa, G.R. Nos. 208566, 208493 and 209251, November 19, 2013, main decision, Separation of Powers: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.