DEMETRIA vs ALBA:

Facts:

Petitioners assail the constitutionality of 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 taxpayerson the primary grounds that Section 44 infringes upon the
fundamental law by authorizing illegal transfer of public moneys, 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), which states that No law shall be passed
authorizing any transfer of appropriations, however, the Presidentmay by law be authorized to augment any
item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their
respective appropriations.

Issue:
1. W/N PD 1177 is constitutional
2. W/N the Supreme Court can act upon the assailed executive act

Held:

1. No. Sec 44 of PD 1177 unduly overextends the privilege granted under Sec16(5) by empowering the
President to indiscriminately transfer funds from one department of the Executive Department to any program
of any department included in the General Appropriations Act, without any regard as to whether or not the
funds to be transferred are actually savings in the item. It not only disregards the standards set in the
fundamental law, thereby amounting to an undue delegation of legislative powers, but likewise goes beyond
the tenor thereof.
Par. 1 of Sec. 44 puts all safeguards to forestall abuses in the expenditure of public funds to naught. Such
constitutional infirmities render the provision in question null and void.

2. Yes. Where the legislature or 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 has assumed to do as void, as part
of its constitutionally conferred judicial power. This is not to say that the judicial power is superior in degree or
dignity. In exercising this high authority, the judges claim no judicial supremacy; they are only the
administrators of the public will.

Petition granted. Par. 1, Sec. 44 OF PD 1177 null and void.

Page 1 of 1