Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 views

    Garcia Vs Matadocx

    Uploaded by

    Ashing RM
    Paragraph 11 of RA 1111, which places limits on how long reserve military officers can be called to active duty, is unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court. The provision is unrelated to appropriating funds for government operations, which was the subject of the act, and violates the prohibition on "riders" - provisions unrelated to the general appropriations act. As the provision has no relevance to the budget and refers instead to fundamental government policy matters, it is inoperative and confers no rights since it was not fairly included in the restricted subject of the act.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Garcia Vs Matadocx

    Uploaded by

    Ashing RM
    5 views1 page
    Paragraph 11 of RA 1111, which places limits on how long reserve military officers can be called to active duty, is unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court. The provision is unrelated to appropriating funds for government operations, which was the subject of the act, and violates the prohibition on "riders" - provisions unrelated to the general appropriations act. As the provision has no relevance to the budget and refers instead to fundamental government policy matters, it is inoperative and confers no rights since it was not fairly included in the restricted subject of the act.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    garcia-vs-matadocx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Paragraph 11 of RA 1111, which places limits on how long reserve military officers can be called to active duty, is unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court. The provision is unrelated to appropriating funds for government operations, which was the subject of the act, and violates the prohibition on "riders" - provisions unrelated to the general appropriations act. As the provision has no relevance to the budget and refers instead to fundamental government policy matters, it is inoperative and confers no rights since it was not fairly included in the restricted subject of the act.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    5 views1 page

    Garcia Vs Matadocx

    Uploaded by

    Ashing RM
    Paragraph 11 of RA 1111, which places limits on how long reserve military officers can be called to active duty, is unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court. The provision is unrelated to appropriating funds for government operations, which was the subject of the act, and violates the prohibition on "riders" - provisions unrelated to the general appropriations act. As the provision has no relevance to the budget and refers instead to fundamental government policy matters, it is inoperative and confers no rights since it was not fairly included in the restricted subject of the act.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Article VI: The Legislative Department

    Section 25. Limits on Power to Appropriate


    (par. 2) Garcia v. Mata, 65 !"A 5#$ (#%$5)
    FACTS:
     The subject of RA 1!!" as e#presse$ in its tit%e" is restricte$ to &appropriatin' fun$s
    for the operation of the 'o(ernment).
     *owe(er" para'raph 11 of RA 1!! pro(i$es: &After the appro(a% of this Act" an$
    when there is no emer'enc+" no reser(e officer of the Arme$ Forces of the Phi%ippines
    ma+ be ca%%e$ to a tour of acti(e $ut+ for more than two +ears $urin' an+ perio$ of fi(e
    consecuti(e +ears)
    o The petitioner ar'ues that his re(ersion to inacti(e status was in (io%ation of the
    abo(e,-uote$ pro(ision
     Respon$ents conten$ that the sai$ pro(ision is unconstitutiona% as it was indeed a non-
    appropriation item inserted in an appropriation measure in (io%ation of the constitutiona%
    inhibition a'ainst ri$ers to the 'enera% appropriation act. /t was in$ee$ a new an$ comp
    %ete%+ unre%ate$ pro(ision attache$ to the Appropriation Act.
    /SS0:
     hether the sai$ pro(ision (io%ates the ru%e on
    &ri$ers) R0L/34:
     S. The sai$ pro(ision has no re%e(ance or pertinence whatsoe(er to the bu$'et or
    to an+ appropriation item containe$ therein since it refers to the fun$amenta%
    'o(ernment
     po%ic+ matters of the ca%%in' to acti(e $ut+ an$ the re(ersion to inacti(e status of reser(e
    officers in the AFP.
     /f a pro(ision in the bo$+ of the act is not fair%+ inc%u$e$ in this restricte$ subject" %i6e the
     pro(ision re%atin' to the po%ic+ matters of ca%%in' to acti(e $ut+ an$ re(ersion to inacti(e
    $ut+ of reser(e officers of the AFP" such pro(ision is inoperati(e an$ of no effect.
    /t confers no ri'ht an$ affor$s no protection.

    You might also like