Macalinao, Romielyn P.

Subject: Constitutional Law 1

Topic: Legal Standing
Title: DEMETRIA vs ALBA
Reference: G.R. No. 71977

February 27 1987

Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the first paragraph of

Sec 44 of PD 1177 (Budget Reform Decree of 1977)as concerned
citizens, members of the National Assembly, parties with general
interest common to all people of the Philippines, and as taxpayers
on the primary grounds that Section 44 infringes upon the
fundamental law by authorizing illegal transfer of public moneys,
with no specifications on its objectives and purposes amounting to
undue delegation of legislative powers and allowing the President to
override the safeguards prescribed for approving appropriations.
The Solicitor General, for the public respondents, questioned
the legal standing of the petitioners and held that one branch of the
government cannot be enjoined by another, coordinate branch in its
performance of duties within its sphere of responsibility. It also
alleged that the petition has become moot and academic after the
abrogation of Sec 16(5), Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution by the
Freedom Constitution (which was where the provision under
consideration was enacted in pursuant thereof).
ISSUES
1.

Whether or not the case is Justiciable?

2.

Whether or not paragraph 1

of section 44 of PD 1177 is

unconstitutional?
RULINGS

1.

Yes, where the legislature or the executive acts beyond the

scope of its constitutional powers, it becomes the duty of the

judiciary to declare what the other branches of the government had
assumed to do, as void.
Further, in terms of legal standing, it is well-settled that the
validity of a statute may be contested only by one who will sustain a
direct injury in consequence of its enforcement. Yet, there are many
decisions nullifying at the instance of taxpayers, laws providing for
the disbursement of public funds, upon the theory that the
expenditure of public funds by an officer of the state for the purpose
of administering an unconstitutional act constitutes a misapplication
of such funds which may be enjoined at the request of a taxpayer.
2.

Yes, since it is contrary to section 16 paragraph 5 of Article 8

of the 1973 Constitution.

Paragraph 1 of Section 44 of P.D. No. 1177 unduly overextends

the

privilege

granted

under

said

Section

16[5],

It

empowers the President to indiscriminately transfer funds from one

department, bureau, office or agency of the Executive Department
to any program, project or activity of any department, bureau or
office included in the General Appropriations Act or approved after
its enactment, without regard as to whether or not the funds to be
transferred are actually savings in the item from which the same
are to be taken, or whether or not the transfer is for the purpose of
augmenting the item to which said transfer is to be made. It does
not only completely disregard the standards set in the fundamental
law, thereby amounting to an undue delegation of legislative
powers, but likewise goes beyond the tenor thereof.

The prohibition to transfer an appropriation for one item to

another was explicit and categorical under the 1973 Constitution.
However, to afford the heads of the different branches of the
government

and

those

of

the

constitutional

commissions

considerable flexibility in the use of public funds and resources, the

constitution allowed the enactment of a law authorizing the transfer
of funds for the purpose of augmenting an item from savings in
another item in the appropriation of the government branch or
constitutional body concerned.