BENGZON VS. DRILON G.R.

103524 April 15, 1992 208 SCRA 133

BENGZON VS. DRILON
G.R. 103524 April 15, 1992 208 SCRA 133
Gutierrez, J.:

FACTS:
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. President Marcos
issued a decree repealing section 3-A of RA 1797 which authorized the adjustment of
the pension of retired justices and officers and enlisted members of the AFP. PD 1638
was eventually issued by Marcos which provided for the automatic readjustment of the
pension of officers and enlisted men was restored, while that of the retired justices was
not. RA 1797 was restored through HB 16297 in 1990. When her advisers gave the
wrong information that the questioned provisions in 1992 GAA were an attempt to
overcome her earlier veto in 1990, President Aquino issued the veto now challenged in
this petition.
It turns out that PD 644 which repealed RA 1797 never became a valid law absent its
publication, thus there was no law. It follows that RA 1797 was still in effect and HB
16297 was superfluous because it tried to restore benefits which were never taken
away validly. The veto of HB 16297 did not also produce any effect.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the veto of the President of certain provisions in the GAA of FY 1992
relating to the payment of the adjusted pensions of retired Justices is constitutional or
valid.

HELD:
The veto of these specific provisions in the GAA is tantamount to dictating to the
Judiciary ot its funds should be utilized, which is clearly repugnant to fiscal autonomy.
Pursuant to constitutional mandate, the Judiciary must enjoy freedom in the disposition
of the funds allocated to it in the appropriations law.
Any argument which seeks to remove special privileges given by law to former Justices
on the ground that there should be no grant of distinct privileges or “preferential
treatment” to retired Justices ignores these provisions of the Constitution and in effect
asks that these Constitutional provisions on special protections for the Judiciary be
repealed.
The petition is granted and the questioned veto is illegal and the provisions of 1992
GAA are declared valid and subsisting.

Bengzon vs Drilon (G.R. No. 103524)

Posted: July 25, 2011 in Case Digests

0
 Veto Power of the President

FACTS: On 15 Jan 1992, some provisions of the Special Provision for the Supreme
Court and the Lower Court’s General Appropriations were vetoed by the President
because a resolution by the Court providing for appropriations for retired justices has
been enacted. The vetoed bill provided for the increase of the pensions of the retired
justices of the Supreme Court, and the Court of Appeals as well as members of the
Constitutional Commission.

ISSUE: Whether or not the veto of the President on that portion of the General
Appropriations bill is constitutional.

HELD: The Justices of the Court have vested rights to the accrued pension that is due
to them in accordance to Republic Act 1797. The president has no power to set aside
and override the decision of the Supreme Court neither does the president have the
power to enact or amend statutes promulgated by her predecessors much less to the
repeal of existing laws. The veto is unconstitutional since the power of the president to
disapprove any item or items in the appropriations bill does not grant the authority to
veto part of an item and to approve the remaining portion of said item.

NOTES: Pocket Veto Not Allowed

Under the Constitution, the President does not have the so-called pocket-veto power,
i.e., disapproval of a bill by inaction on his part. The failure of the President to
communicate his veto of any bill represented to him within 30 days after the receipt
thereof automatically causes the bill to become a law.
This rule corrects the Presidential practice under the 1935 Constitution of releasing veto
messages long after he should have acted on the bill. It also avoids uncertainty as to
what new laws are in force.
When is it allowed?

The exception is provided in par (2),Sec 27 of Art 6 of the Constitution which grants the
President power to veto any particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue or tariff
bill. The veto in such case shall not affect the item or items to which he does not object.

3 ways how a bill becomes a law.

1. When the President signs it

2. When the President vetoes it but the veto is overridden by 2/3 vote of all the
members of each House; and
3. When the president does not act upon the measure within 30 days after it shall have
been presented to him.