\Cesar Bengzon, et al. vs Hon. Franklin Drilon et al.

G.R. No. 103524, April 15, 1992

Gutierrez Jr., J.

FACTS:

The petitioners are retired justices of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals who are
currently receiving pensions under RA 910 as amended by RA 1797. During the term of President
Marcos, RA 1797 was repealed by PD 644 removing the automatic readjustment of the pension
received by retired justices.
In 1990, in an attempt to restore RA 1797, Congress passed House Bill No. 16297 but the
President vetoed it on the grounds that the government should not grant distinct privileges to select
group of officials whose retirement benefits already enjoy preferential treatment over those of the
vast majority of our civil service servants.
In 1991, a petition was filed a petition for the readjustment of the monthly pensions of the
retired justices contending that PD 944, repealing RA 1797, did not become a law as there is no
valid publication. The court acted favorably and ordered the readjustment of the pensions.
Consequently, the Congress included a special provision, acting upon the resolution regarding the
adjustment of the pensions of retired justices, in the General Appropriations Bill for FY 1992.
The president, on her review of the bill, vetoed specific portions from the Sections that is
related to the appropriation for the adjusted pensions—reiterating her reason in vetoing HB 16297
back in 1990.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the veto of the President of the portions of the General Appropriations Bill
for FY 1992 is valid and constitutional.

RULING:

The Supreme Court ruled that underlining specific portions of the provisions did not equate
to a valid item-veto thus, the veto was unconstitutional. Also, the Justices of the Court have vested
rights to the accrued pension that is due to them in accordance to Republic Act 1797 which was
never repealed. The president has no power to set aside and override the decision of the Supreme
Court over the previous granted petition of the retired justices.