Philippine Constitution Association, 50994307 vs.

Enriquez, 708543/039
235 SCRA 506

Facts: RA 7663 (Iormer House bill No. 10900, the General Appropriations Bill oI 1994) entitled 'An Act Appropriating Funds Ior the
Operation oI the Government oI the Philippines Irom January 1 to December 1, 1994, and Ior other Purposes was approved by the
President and vetoed some oI the provisions.
Petitioners assail the special provision allowing a member oI Congress to realign his allocation Ior operational expenses to any other
expense category claiming that it violates Sec. 25, Art 7 oI the Constitution. Issues oI constitutionality were raised beIore the Supreme
Court.
PhilConsA prayed Ior a writ oI prohibition to declare unconstitutional and void.
a.) Art 16 on the Countrywide Development Fund and
b.) The veto oI the President oI the Special provision oI Art XLVIII oI the GAA oI 1994.
16 members oI the Senate sought the issuance oI writs oI certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the Exec. Secretary,
the Sec. oI Dept. oI Budget and Management and the National Treasurer and questions:
1.) Constitutionality oI the conditions imposed by the President in the items oI the GAA oI 1994
2.) The constitutionality oI the veto oI the special provision in the appropriation Ior debt services.
Senators Tanada and Romulo sought the issuance oI the writs oI prohibition and mandamus against the same respondents.
Petitioners contest the constitutionality oI:
1.) Veto on Iour special provisions added to items in the GAA oI 1994 Ior the AFP and DPWH;
2.) The conditions imposed by the President in the implementation oI certain appropriations Ior the CAFGU`s, DPWH, and Nat`l
Highway Authority.

ssue: WON the President`s veto is constitutional and valid.

Ruling: In the PHILCONSA petition, the SC ruled that Congress acted within its power. In the Taada petitions the SC dismissed the
other petitions and granted the others.
Veto on special provisions .
The president did his veto with certain conditions and compliant to the ruling in Gonzales vs Macaraig. The president
particularly vetoed the debt reduction scheme in the GAA oI 1994 commenting that the scheme is already taken cared oI by other
legislation and may be more properly addressed by revising the debt policy. He, however did not delete the P86,323,438,000.00
appropriation thereIor. Taada et al averred that the president cannot validly veto that provision w/o vetoing the amount allotted
thereIor. The veto oI the president herein is sustained Ior the vetoed provision is considered 'inappropriate; in Iact the SC Iound that
such provision iI not vetoed would in eIIect repeal the Foreign Borrowing Act making the legislation as a log-rolling legislation.
Veto of provisions for revolving funds of SUCs.
The appropriation Ior State Universities and Colleges (SUC's), the President vetoed special provisions which authorize the
use oI income and the creation, operation and maintenance oI revolving Iunds was likewise vetoed. The reason Ior the veto is that
there were already Iunds allotted Ior the same in the National expenditure Program. Taada et al claimed this as unconstitutional. The
SC ruled that the veto is valid Ior it is in compliant to the 'One Fund Policy it avoided double Iunding and redundancy.
Veto of provision on 70 (administrative)/30 (contract) ratio for road maintenance.
The President vetoed this provision on the basis that it may result to a breach oI contractual obligations. The Iunds iI allotted
may result to abandonment oI some existing contracts. The SC ruled that this Special Provision in question is not an inappropriate
provision which can be the subject oI a veto. It is not alien to the appropriation Ior road maintenance, and on the other hand, it
speciIies how the said item shall be expended - 70 by administrative and 30 by contract. The 1987 Constitution allows the addition
by Congress oI special provisions, conditions to items in an expenditure bill, which cannot be vetoed separately Irom the items to
which they relate so long as they are "appropriate" in the budgetary sense.
The veto herein is then not valid.
Veto of provision on prior approval of Congress for purchase of military equipment.
As reason Ior the veto, the President stated that the said condition and prohibition violate the Constitutional mandate oI non-
impairment oI contractual obligations, and iI allowed, "shall eIIectively alter the original intent oI the AFP Modernization Fund to
cover all military equipment deemed necessary to modernize the AFP". The SC aIIirmed the veto. Any provision blocking an
administrative action in implementing a law or requiring legislative approval oI executive acts must be incorporated in a separate and
substantive bill. ThereIore, being "inappropriate" provisions.
Veto of provision on use of savings to augment AFP pension funds.
According to the President, the grant oI retirement and separation beneIits should be covered by direct appropriations
speciIically approved Ior the purpose pursuant to Section 29(1) oI Article VI oI the Constitution. Moreover, he stated that the authority
to use savings is lodged in the oIIicials enumerated in Section 25(5) oI Article VI oI the Constitution. The SC retained the veto per
reasons provided by the president.
Condition on the deactivation of the CAFGU's.
Congress appropriated compensation Ior the CAFGU's including the payment oI separation beneIits. The President declared
in his Veto Message that the implementation oI this Special Provision to the item on the CAFGU's shall be subject to prior
Presidential approval pursuant to P.D. No. 1597 and R.A. No. 6758. The SC ruled to retain the veto per reasons provided by the
president. Further, iI this provision is allowed the it would only lead to the repeal oI said existing laws.
Conditions on the appropriation for the Supreme Court, etc.
In his veto message: "The said condition is consistent with the Constitutional injunction prescribed under Section 8, Article
IX-B oI the Constitutional which states that 'no elective or appointive public oIIicer or employee shall receive additional, double, or
indirect compensation unless speciIically authorized by law.' I am, thereIore, conIident that the heads oI the said oIIices shall maintain
Iidelity to the law and IaithIully adhere to the well-established principle on compensation standardization. Taada et al claim that the
conditions imposed by the President violated the independence and Iiscal autonomy oI the Supreme court, the Ombudsman, the COA
and the CHR. The SC sustained the veto: In the Iirst place, the conditions questioned by petitioners were placed in the GAB by
Congress itselI, not by the President. The Veto Message merely highlighted the Constitutional mandate that additional or indirect
compensation can only be given pursuant to law. In the second place, such statements are mere reminders that the disbursements oI
appropriations must be made in accordance with law. Such statements may, at worse, be treated as superIluities.