Page 15 - Senate Vs Ermita
Page 15 - Senate Vs Ermita
Page 15 - Senate Vs Ermita
Ermita , GR 169777, April 20, 2006 expedient of invoking said provisions, the power of
Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is
FACTS: frustrated.
This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition proffer that
the President has abused power by issuing E.O. 464
“Ensuring Observance of the Principles of Separation of BENGZON VS SENATE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE
Powers, Adherence to the Rule on Executive Privilege EN BANC
and Respect for the Rights of Public Officials Appearing
Posted by kaye lee on 5:46 PM
in Legislative Inquiries in Aid of Legislation Under the
Constitution, and for Other Purposes”. Petitioners pray G.R. No. 89914 November 20, 1991 [Section 21, Article
for its declaration as null and void for being 6: Aids in Legislation: On Legislative Investigation]
unconstitutional.
In the exercise of its legislative power, the Senate of the
Philippines, through its various Senate Committees, FACTS:
conducts inquiries or investigations in aid of legislation PCGG filed with the Sandiganbayan against Benjamin
which call for, inter alia, the attendance of officials and Romualdez, et al for engaging in devices, schemes and
employees of the executive department, bureaus, and stratagems to unjustly enrich themselves at the expense
offices including those employed in Government Owned of plaintiff and the Filipino people.
and Controlled Corporations, the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP), and the Philippine National Police The Senate Minority Floor Leader Enrile delivered a
(PNP). speech before the Senate on the alleged take-over
The Committee of the Senate issued invitations to personal privilege before the Senate on the alleged
various officials of the Executive Department for them to "takeover of SOLOIL Inc," the FlagShip of the First
appear as resource speakers in a public hearing on the Manila Management of Companies or FMMC by Ricardo
railway project, others on the issues of massive election Lopa and called upon the Senate to look into the possible
fraud in the Philippine elections, wire tapping, and the violation of the law in the case with regard to RA 3019
role of military in the so-called “Gloriagate Scandal”. (Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
Said officials were not able to attend due to lack of The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee (Committee on
consent from the President as provided by E.O. 464, Accountability of Public Officers [SBRC]) started its
Section 3 which requires all the public officials investigation on the matter. Petitioners and Ricardo Lopa
enumerated in Section 2(b) to secure the consent of the were subpoenaed by the SBRC to appear before it and
President prior to appearing before either house of testify on what they know regarding the sale of 36
Congress. corporations belonging to Benjamin Romualdez. Lopa
and Bengzon refused to testify, invoking their rights to
ISSUE: due process, and that their testimony may unduly
Is Section 3 of E.O. 464, which requires all the public prejudice the defendants and petitioners in case before
officials, enumerated in Section 2(b) to secure the the Sandiganbayan.
consent of the President prior to appearing before either
house of Congress, valid and constitutional? SBRC rejected the petitioner's plea to be excused from
testifying and the SBRC continued its investigation of the
RULING: matter.
No. The enumeration in Section 2 (b) of E.O. 464 is The petitioners filed for prohibition with a prayer for TRO
broad and is covered by the executive privilege. The and/or injunctive relief, claiming that the SBRC in
doctrine of executive privilege is premised on the fact requiring their attendance and testimony, acted in
that certain information must, as a matter of necessity, excess of its jurisdiction and legislative purpose.
be kept confidential in pursuit of the public interest. The
privilege being, by definition, an exemption from the The Supreme Court intervened upon a motion for
obligation to disclose information, in this case to reconsideration filed by one of the defendants of the civil
Congress, the necessity must be of such high degree as case.
to outweigh the public interest in enforcing that obligation
in a particular case.
Congress undoubtedly has a right to information from the ISSUES:
executive branch whenever it is sought in aid of 1. Whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the case.
legislation. If the executive branch withholds such
information on the ground that it is privileged, it must so 2. Whether or not the SBRC's inquiry has valid legislative
assert it and state the reason therefor and why it must be purpose.
respected. 3. whether or not the civil case of Sandiganbayan is
The infirm provisions of E.O. 464, however, allow the beyond the power of the SBRC to inquire into.
executive branch to evade congressional requests for
information without need of clearly asserting a right to do 4. Whether or not the inquiry violates the petitioners' right
so and/or proffering its reasons therefor. By the mere to due process.
4. Yes. The Constitution expressly provides that "the
RULING: rights of persons appearing in or affected by such
inquiries shall be respected.
It should be emphasized that the constitutional restriction
does not call for the banning or prohibition of
1. Yes. In Angara vs Electoral Commission, the
investigations where a violation of a basis rights is
Constitution provided for an elaborate system of checks
claimed. It only requires that in the course of the
and balances to secure coordination in the workings of
proceedings, the right of persons should be respected.
the various departments of the government. The Court
has provided that the allocation of constitutional What the majority opinion mandates is a blanket
boundaries is a task which the judiciary must perform prohibition against a witness testifying at all, simply
under the Constitution. Moreover, as held in a recent because he is already facing charges before the
case, "(t)he political question doctrine neither interposes Sandiganbayan. To my mind, the Constitution allows him
an obstacle to judicial determination of the rival claims. to interpose objections whenever an incriminating
The jurisdiction to delimit constitutional boundaries has question is posed or when he is compelled to reveal his
been given to this Court. It cannot abdicate that court defenses, but not to refuse to take the witness
obligation mandated by the 1987 Constitution, although stand completely.
said provision by no means does away with the
applicability of the principle in appropriate cases."
NERI VS SENATE COMMITTEE ON
The Court is thus of the considered view that it has
ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
jurisdiction over the present controversy for the purpose
of determining the scope and extent of the power of the Posted by kaye lee on 8:54 PM
Senate Blue Ribbon Committee to conduct inquiries into
private affairs in purported aid of legislation. G.R.No. 180643, March 25 2008 [Executive Privilege]
FACTS:
2. No.
The Senate issued various Senate Resolutions directing
The power to conduct formal inquiries or investigations
SBRC, among others, to conduct an investigation
is specifically provided for in Sec. 1 of the Senate Rules
regarding the NBN-ZTE deal. Neri, the head of NEDA,
of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation.
Such inquiries may refer to the implementation or re- was then invited to testify before the Senate Blue
examination of any law or in connection with any Ribbon. He disclosed that the COMELEC Chairman
Abalos offered him P200M in exchange for his approval
proposed legislation or the formulation of future
of the NBN Project, that he informed PGMA about the
legislation. They may also extend to any and all matters
bribery and that she instructed him not to accept the
vested by the Constitution in Congress and/or in the
bribe. However, when probed further on what they
Senate alone.
discussed about the NBN Project, he refused to answer,
invoking “executive privilege”. In particular, he refused to
answer the questions on (a) whether or not President
It appears, therefore, that the contemplated inquiry by
Arroyo followed up the NBN Project, (b) whether or not
respondent Committee is not really "in aid of legislation"
she directed him to prioritize it, and (c) whether or not
because it is not related to a purpose within the
she directed him to approve. As a result, the Senate cited
jurisdiction of Congress, since the aim of the
him for contempt.
investigation is to find out whether or not the relatives of
the President or Mr. Ricardo Lopa had violated Section ISSUE:
5 RA No. 3019, the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Whether or not the communications elicited by the 3
Act", a matter that appears more within the province of
questions covered by executive privilege.
the courts rather than of the legislature.
Demetrio Demetria vs Manuel Alba Subject Shall Be Expressed in the Title – Police
Power Not Validly Exercise
Vicente De La Cruz et al were club & cabaret operators.
148 SCRA 208 – Political Law – Transfer of Funds They assail the constitutionality of Ord. No. 84, Ser. of
– Power of the President to Realign Funds 1975 or the Prohibition and Closure Ordinance of
Demetrio Demetria et al as taxpayers and members of Bocaue, Bulacan. De la Cruz averred that the said
the Batasan Pambansa sought to prohibit Manuel Alba, Ordinance violates their right to engage in a lawful
then Minister of the Budget, from disbursing funds business for the said ordinance would close out their
pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1177 or the Budget business. That the hospitality girls they employed are
Reform Decree of 1977. Demetria assailed the healthy and are not allowed to go out with customers.
constitutionality of paragraph 1, Section 44 of the said Judge Paras however lifted the TRO he earlier issued
PD. This Section provides that: against Ord. 84 after due hearing declaring that Ord 84.
is constitutional for it is pursuant to RA 938 which reads
“AN ACT GRANTING MUNICIPAL OR CITY BOARDS refund of the full amount of P14,598.08 because the
AND COUNCILS THE POWER TO REGULATE THE ILC’s right to claim the refund of a portion thereof,
ESTABLISHMENT, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION particularly those paid during the period from January 1,
OF CERTAIN PLACES OF AMUSEMENT WITHIN 1963 to April 29, 1963 had already prescribed. Hence,
THEIR RESPECTIVE TERRITORIAL ICL was credited the refund of P10,560.20 only. Both
JURISDICTIONS”. Paras ruled that the prohibition is a parties appealed from the decision of the CTA.
valid exercise of police power to promote general
The CIR averred that CTA should not have ruled this
welfare. De la Cruz then appealed citing that they were
way: The title of RA 1435 is “An Act to Provide Means
deprived of due process.
for Increasing The Highway Special Fund.” The CIR
ISSUE: Whether or not a municipal corporation, contends that the subject of RA 1435 was to increase
Bocaue, Bulacan can, prohibit the exercise of a lawful Highway Special Fund. However, Section 5 of the Act
trade, the operation of night clubs, and the pursuit of a deals with another subject which is the partial exemption
lawful occupation, such clubs employing hostesses of miners and loggers. And this partial exemption on
pursuant to Ord 84 which is further in pursuant to RA which the Company based its claim for refund is clearly
938. not expressed in the title of the aforesaid Act. More
importantly, Section 5 provides for a decrease rather
HELD: The SC ruled against Paras. If night clubs were than an increase of the Highway Special Fund.
merely then regulated and not prohibited, certainly the
assailed ordinance would pass the test of validity. SC ISSUE: Whether or not to grant the partial tax refund to
had stressed reasonableness, consonant with the ILC.
general powers and purposes of municipal corporations,
HELD: Yes, but only in the amount as found by the
as well as consistency with the laws or policy of the
CTA. The Supreme Court ruled that there is no merit in
State. It cannot be said that such a sweeping exercise of
the contention of the CIR. RA 1435 deals with only one
a lawmaking power by Bocaue could qualify under the
subject and proclaims just one policy, namely, the
term reasonable. The objective of fostering public
necessity for increasing the Highway Special Fund
morals, a worthy and desirable end can be attained by a
through the imposition of an increased specific tax on
measure that does not encompass too wide a field.
manufactured oils. The proviso in Sec 5 of the law is in
Certainly the ordinance on its face is characterized by
effect a partial exemption from the imposed increased
overbreadth. The purpose sought to be achieved could
tax. Said proviso, which has reference to specific tax on
have been attained by reasonable restrictions rather
oil and fuel, is not a deviation from the general subject of
than by an absolute prohibition. Pursuant to the title of
the law. The primary purpose of the aforequoted
the Ordinance, Bocaue should and can only regulate not
constitutional provision is to prohibit duplicity in
prohibit the business of cabarets.
legislation the title of which might completely fail to
apprise the legislators or the public of the nature, scope
and consequences of the law or its operation. But that is
104 SCRA 710 – Political Law – One Subject not so for in the passage of RA 1435 since, as the
Embraced in the Title of a Bill records of its proceedings bear out, a full debate on
precisely the issue of whether its title reflects its
Insular Lumber Company (ILC) is an American company
complete subject was held by Congress which passed it.
engaged as a licensed forest concessionaire. The ILC
purchased manufactured oil and motor fuel which it used
in the operation of its forest concession. In 1956,
Republic Act No. 1435 was passed. Section 5 thereof 24 SCRA 172 – Political Law – Title Must Express
provides that there should be a partial tax refund to those One Subject
using oil in the operation of forest and mining
concessions. In 1961, Republic Act No. 3043 (An
Act to Further
Amend Commonwealth Act Numbered One
In 1964, ILC filed with the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue (CIR) to have a tax refund of P19,921.37
Hundred Twenty, as Amended by Republic Act
pursuant to the said RA. The Court of Industrial Relations Numbered Twenty Six Hundred and Forty One) was
(CIR) ruled that ILC is not covered by such provision passed. This law amended the charter of NAPOCOR
because Sec. 5, RA 1435 is only effective 5 years from (National Power Corporation). Section 3 of RA 3043
its enactment. Hence, in 1961 the provision ceased to be provides that:
effective. ILC appealed the issue to the CTA and the a. contractors being supplied by NAPOCOR shall not
CTA ruled the operation of a sawmill is distinct from the exceed an annual profit of 12%;
operation of a forest concession, hence, the refund
provision of Sec 5, RA 1435 allowing partial refund to b. if they do, they shall refund such excess to their
forest and mining concessionaires cannot be extended customers;
to the operators of a sawmill. And out of the P19,921.37 c. that NAPOCOR has the power to renew all existing
claimed, only the amount of P14,598.08 was paid on oil contracts with franchise holders for the supply of energy.
utilized in logging operations. The CTA did not allow the
Santiago Alalayan and the Philippine Power and ISSUE: Whether or not the creation of the TMD is
Development Company (PPDC) assailed the said embraced in the title of the bill and whether or not to allow
provision.They averred that Section 3 is a rider because trial lawyers from TCU to appear as counsel for indigent
first, it was not included in the title of the amending law tenants should be allowed.
nor was it included in the amended law. Second, the
main purpose of RA 3043 was to increase the capital HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that that the
stock of NAPOCOR hence Alalayan et al believed that constitutional requirement in question is satisfied if all
Section 3 was not germane to RA 3043. parts of the law are related, and are germane to the
subject matter expressed in the title of the bill.The
ISSUE: Whether or not Section 3 of RA 3043 is constitutional requirement is complied with as long as the
constitutional. law, as in the instant case, has a single general subject
which is the Agricultural Tenancy Act and the
HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court simply ruled that the amendatory provisions no matter how diverse they may
Constitution does not require Congress to employ in the
be, so long as they are not inconsistent with or foreign to
title of an enactment, language of such precision as to
the general subject, will be regarded as valid. To declare
mirror, fully index or catalogue all the contents and the
sections 19 and 20 of RA 2263 null and void would in
minute details therein. It suffices if the title should serve
effect upset the transfer of the duty of representing
the purpose of the constitutional demand that it inform
indigent tenants from the public defenders of the
the legislators, the persons interested in the subject of
Department of Labor to the trial attorneys in the
the bill, and the public, of the nature, scope and
Mediation Division of the Agricultural Tenancy
consequences of the proposed law and its operation.
Commission of the Department of Justice. In other
And this, to lead them to inquire into the body of the bill,
words, a declaration of nullity of these provisions of RA
study and discuss the same, take appropriate action
2263 would do harm to, and would be nugatory of, the
thereon, and, thus, prevent surprise or fraud upon the
intention of Congress to consolidate the function of
legislators.
enforcing our tenancy laws in the Department of Justice.
6 SCRA 418 – Political Law – One Title, One Equal Protection” – Oil Deregulation Law
Subject Rule – Tenancy Act
Considering that oil is not endemic to this country, history
Manuel Cordero was the trial lawyer of the Tenancy shows that the government has always been finding
Counsel Unit (TCU) of the Agricultural Tenancy ways to alleviate the oil industry. The government
Commission of the Department of Justice. He later created laws accommodate these innovations in the oil
appeared as the counsel of indigent tenant Vicente industry. One such law is the Downstream Oil
Salazar who filed a case against landlord Leonardo Sta. Deregulation Act of 1996 or RA 8180. This law allows
Romana in order to reinstate and reliquidate past that “any person or entity may import or purchase any
harvests. Sta. Romana filed a motion to disqualify quantity of crude oil and petroleum products from a
Cordero as counsel for Salazar and he invoked Sec. 54 foreign or domestic source, lease or own and operate
of Republic Act No. 1199 or The Agricultural Tenancy Act refineries and other downstream oil facilities and market
of the Philippines. The said section indicates that such crude oil or use the same for his own requirement,”
representation by counsel of tenants who cannot afford subject only to monitoring by the Department of Energy.
to pay should be done by the public defenders of the Tatad assails the constitutionality of the law. He claims,
Department of Labor. among others, that the imposition of different tariff rates
Judge Jose Cabatuando ruled in favor of Sta. Romana. on imported crude oil and imported refined petroleum
Cordero appealed. During pendency of the appeal products violates the equal protection clause. Tatad
Republic Act No. 2263, AN ACT AMENDING CERTAIN contends that the 3%-7% tariff differential unduly favors
SECTIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED ONE the three existing oil refineries and discriminates against
THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED NINETY-NINE, prospective investors in the downstream oil industry who
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE AGRICULTURAL do not have their own refineries and will have to source
TENANCY ACT OF THE PHILIPPINES, was passed. refined petroleum products from abroad.3% is to be
This law, particularly Sections 19 and 20 thereof, taxed on unrefined crude products and 7% on refined
amended the previous law and now allows trial lawyers crude products.
from the TCU to represent indigent tenants and it is also ISSUE: Whether or not RA 8180 is constitutional.
the basis of the creation of the Tenancy Mediation
Division. Cordero filed a Manifestation averring that by HELD: The SC declared the unconstitutionality of RA
virtue of the amendment the issue has now become 8180 because it violated Sec 19 of Art 12 of the
moot and academic. Cabatuando countered that the Constitution. It violated that provision because it only
provisions were not embraced in the title of the amending strengthens oligopoly which is contrary to free
law nor in the amended law hence void. competition. It cannot be denied that our downstream oil
industry is operated and controlled by an oligopoly, a
foreign oligopoly at that. Petron, Shell and Caltex stand
as the only major league players in the oil market. All 1916, established the practice for the enactment of a law,
other players belong to the lilliputian league. As the including the sanctioning of the veto power by the
dominant players, Petron, Shell and Caltex boast of Governor-General. Specifically it provided:
existing refineries of various capacities. The tariff
The Governor-General shall have the power to veto any
differential of 4% therefore works to their immense
particular item or items of an appropriation bill, but the
benefit. Yet, this is only one edge of the tariff differential.
veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does
The other edge cuts and cuts deep in the heart of their
not object.
competitors. It erects a high barrier to the entry of new
players. New players that intend to equalize the market The SC then is constrained to rule against Bengzon and
power of Petron, Shell and Caltex by building refineries to hold that the veto by the Governor-General of section
of their own will have to spend billions of pesos. Those 7 of Act No. 4051 was in conformity with the legislative
who will not build refineries but compete with them will purpose and the provisions of the Organic Act.
suffer the huge disadvantage of increasing their product
cost by 4%. They will be competing on an uneven field.
The argument that the 4% tariff differential is desirable Read full text
because it will induce prospective players to invest in
refineries puts the cart before the horse. The first need NOTE: Quite interestingly, while I was doing some
is to attract new players and they cannot be attracted by research on this, it appears that this case was further
burdening them with heavy disincentives. Without new appealed (via certiorari) to the U.S. Supreme Court (299
players belonging to the league of Petron, Shell and U.S. 410). That was allowed then because the
Caltex, competition in our downstream oil industry is an Philippines was under the Commonwealth regime. The
idle dream. U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision. You can read
RA 8180 is unconstitutional on the ground inter alia that it here. It was ruled that the Governor-General did not
it discriminated against the “new players” insofar as it have the power to veto such item in the said law because
placed them at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis the in truth and in fact, the said law was not an
established oil companies by requiring them to meet appropriations law. hence, no line item veto can be
certain conditions already being observed by the latter. had.
68 Phil. 912 (299 U.S. 410) – Political law – Bill – 11 SCRA 486 – Political Law – Veto Power –
Veto – Veto a Bill Condition Attached to an Item
Juan Bengzon was appointed as Justice of the Peace in Bolinao Electronics Corporation was the co-owner and a
1912 in Lingayen, Pangasinan. Upon reaching 65 years co-petitioner of Chronicle Broadcasting Network, Inc.
of age in 1933 he would have to retire in accordance with (CBN) and Montserrat Broadcasting System Inc. They
the law. He later sought to claim gratuity pursuant to Act operate and own television (channel 9) and radio
4051 “An Act to provide for the payment of stations in the Philippines. They were summoned by
Brigido Valencia, then Secretary of Communications, for
retirement gratuities to officers and employees of
operating even after their permit has expired. Valencia
the Insular Government retired from the service as claimed that because of CBN’s continued operation sans
a result of the reorganization or reduction of license and their continuing operation had caused
personnel thereof, including the justices of the damages to his department.
peace who must relinquish office in accordance ISSUE: Whether or not Valencia is entitled to claim for
with the provisions of Act Numbered Thirty-eight damages.
hundred and ninety-nine, and for other purposes.”
HELD: The SC ruled in the negative. Valencia failed to
Section 7 thereof specifically provides that gratuity may show that any right of his has been violated by the refusal
be availed of by justices like Bengzon but that provision of CBN to cease operation. Further, the SC noted that as
has been vetoed by the governor-general. Bengzon said the records show, the appropriation to operate the
the veto is beyond the power of the governor-general Philippine Broadcasting Service as approved by
hence he filed a petition for mandamus to compel the Congress and incorporated in the 1962-1963 Budget of
Secretary of Justice to implement the gratuity provision the Republic of the Philippines does not allow
of the said law. appropriations for TV stations particularly in Luzon.
Hence, since there was no appropriation allotted then
ISSUE: Whether or not Bengzon is entitled to the there can be no damage; and if there are expenditures
gratuity provision of the Retirement Gratuity Law.
made by Valencia’s department they are in fact in
HELD: No. The governor-general in vetoing the said violation of the law and they cannot claim damages
item of the law has acted within his power; for this is also therefrom. And even if it is shown that the then president
in compliance with the Organic Act. Section 19 of the vetoed this provision of the Budget Act, such veto is
former Organic Act, the Act of Congress of August 29, illegal because he may not legally veto a condition
attached to an appropriation or item in the appropriation in order to standardize retirement benefits among
bill. government officials. However, President Corazon
Aquino vetoed the bill (House Bill No. 16297) on the
Note: This ruling, that the executive’s veto power does ground that the law should not give preferential treatment
not carry with it the power to strike out conditions or to certain or select government officials.
restrictions, has been adhered to in subsequent cases.
If the veto is unconstitutional, it follows that the same Meanwhile, a group of retired judges and justices filed a
produced no effect whatsoever; and the restriction petition with the Supreme Court asking the court to
imposed by the appropriation bill, therefore, remains. readjust their pensions. They pointed out that RA 1797
was never repealed (by P.D. No. 644) because the said
PD was one of those unpublished PDs which were
Political Law – Veto Power – Inappropriate subject of the case of Tañada v. Tuvera. Hence, the
Provision in an Appropriation Bill repealing law never existed due to non publication and
in effect, RA 1797 was never repealed. The Supreme
Gonzales, together w/ 22 other senators, assailed the Court then readjusted their pensions.
constitutionality of Cory’s veto of Section 55 of the 1989
Congress took notice of the readjustment and son in the
Appropriations Bill (Sec 55 FY ’89, and subsequently of
General Appropriations Bill (GAB) for 1992, Congress
its counterpart Section 16 of the 1990 Appropriations Bill
allotted additional budget for pensions of retired justices.
(Sec 16 FY ’90). Gonzalez averred the following: (1) the
Congress however did the allotment in the following
President’s line-veto power as regards appropriation bills
manner: Congress made an item entitled: “General Fund
is limited to item/s and does not cover provision/s;
Adjustment”; included therein are allotments to
therefore, she exceeded her authority when she vetoed
unavoidable obligations in different brances of the
Section 55 (FY ’89) and Section 16 (FY ’90) which are
government; among such obligations is the allotment for
provision; (2) when the President objects to a provision
the pensions of retired justices of the judiciary.
of an appropriation bill, she cannot exercise the item-
veto power but should veto the entire bill; (3) the item- However, President Aquino again vetoed the said lines
veto power does not carry with it the power to strike out which provided for the pensions of the retired justices in
conditions or restrictions for that would be legislation, in the judiciary in the GAB. She explained that that portion
violation of the doctrine of separation of powers; and (4) of the GAB is already deemed vetoed when she vetoed
the power of augmentation in Article VI, Section 25 [5] of H.B. 16297.
the 1987 Constitution, has to be provided for by law and,
therefore, Congress is also vested with the prerogative This prompted Cesar Bengzon and several other retired
to impose restrictions on the exercise of that power. judges and justices to question the constitutionality of
the veto made by the President. The President was
ISSUE: Whether or not the President exceeded the represented by then Executive Secretary Franklin Drilon.
item-veto power accorded by the Constitution. Or
differently put, has the President the power to veto
ISSUE: Whether or not the veto of the President on that
`provisions’ of an Appropriations Bill. portion of the General Appropriations bill is
constitutional.
HELD: SC ruled that Congress cannot include in a
general appropriations bill matters that should be more
HELD: No. The Justices of the Court have vested
properly enacted in separate legislation, and if it does rights to the accrued pension that is due to them in
that, the inappropriate provisions inserted by it must be accordance to Republic Act 1797 which was never
treated as “item,” which can be vetoed by the President repealed. The president has no power to set aside and
in the exercise of his item-veto power. The SC went one override the decision of the Supreme Court neither does
step further and rules that even assuming arguendo that the president have the power to enact or amend statutes
“provisions” are beyond the executive power to veto, and promulgated by her predecessors much less to the
Section 55 (FY ’89) and Section 16 (FY ’90) were not repeal of existing laws.
“provisions” in the budgetary sense of the term, they are The Supreme Court also explained that the veto is
“inappropriate provisions” that should be treated as unconstitutional since the power of the president to
“items” for the purpose of the President’s veto power. disapprove any item or items in the appropriations bill
does not grant the authority to veto part of an item and
to approve the remaining portion of said item. It appears
208 SCRA 133 – Political Law – Veto Power of the that in the same item, the Presidents vetoed some
President portion of it and retained the others. This cannot be done.
The rule is: the Executive must veto a bill in its entirety
In 1990, Congress sought to reenact some old laws (i.e. or not at all; the Executive must veto an entire line item
Republic Act No. 1797) that were “repealed” during the in its entirety or not at all. In this case, the president did
time of former President Ferdinand Marcos. These old not veto the entire line item of the general adjustment
laws provided certain retirement benefits to retired fund. She merely vetoed the portion which pertained to
judges, justices, and members of the constitutional the pensions of the justices but did not veto the other
commissions. Congress felt a need to restore these laws
items covering obligations to the other departments of limitations and restrictions as [Congress] may impose” to
the government. fix “within specific limits” “tariff rates . . . and other duties
or imposts . . . .” In this case, it is the Tariff and Customs
Code which authorized the President ot issue the said
Read full text EOs.