Bengzon vs.

Drilon

Facts: Republic Act No. 1797 amended Republic Act No, 910 which provide the retirement pensions of
Justices of the Supreme Court and of the Court of Appeals. However, President Marcos issued
Presidential Decree 644 repealing Section 3-A of Republic Act No. 1797 and Republic Act No. 3595 which
authorized the adjustment of the pension of the retired Justices of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals,
Chairman and members of the Constitutional Commissions and the officers and enlisted members of the
Armed Forces to the prevailing rates of salaries. While the adjustment of the retirement pensions for
members of the Armed Forces was restored, that of the retired Justices of the Supreme Court and Court
of Appeals was not. Thereupon, Congress approved in 1990 a bill for the re-enactment of the repealed
provisions of Republic Act No. 1797 and Republic Act No. 3595. President Aquino however vetoed the
House Bill.

Issue: Whether or not the Fiscal Autonomy guaranteed to the Judiciary was impaired by the questioned
veto

Held: Yes, the Constitution provides that only a particular item or items may be vetoed, thus, the veto
power is not absolute. Sec. 3, Art. VIII mandates that the Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. The
Supreme Court held that the veto of these specific provisions in the General Appropriations Act is
tantamount to dictating to the Judiciary how its funds should be utilized, which is clearly repugnant to
fiscal autonomy. Thus, the questioned veto was declared as illegal and unconstitutional.