SECTION 27

GONZALES v MACARAIG
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1990novemberdecisions.php?id=1523

EN BANC

G.R. NO. 87636

NOVEMBER 19, 1990

NEPTALI A. GONZALES, Petitioner

v. HON. CATALINO MACARAIG, JR., Respondent

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:

FACTS
 On 16 December 1988, Congress passed House Bill No. 19186, or the General
Appropriations Bill for the Fiscal Year 1989.
 On 29 December 1988, the President signed the Bill into law, and declared the same to have
become Rep. Act No. 6688.
 In the process, seven (7) Special Provisions and Section 55, a "General Provision," were
vetoed.
 The reason cited by President Aquino was these sections violates Section 25 (5) of Article VI
of the Constitution.
 If allowed, this section would nullify not only the statutory and constitutional authority of
the aforesaid officials to augment any item in the GAA for their respective offices from
savings in other items of their appropriation.
 "The provision violates Section 25 (5) of Article VI of the Constitution.
 Petitioners question the validity of the veto as
 The line-veto power of the President in appropriations bill pertain to items, not provisions
 The President cannot veto a provision of an appropriations bill without vetoing the whole
bill

ISSUE
 WON the presidential veto on Section 55 of the GAA for the fiscal year 1989 and Section 16
of the GAA for the fiscal year 1990 is constitutional.

HELD
 Yes, the presidential veto on Section 55 of GAA for the fiscal year 1989 and Section 16 of the
GAA for the fiscal year 1990 is constitutional.

WHEREFORE, the constitutionality of the assailed Presidential veto is UPHELD

and this Petition is hereby DISMISSED. No costs.
RATIO
 The veto power of the President is expressed in Article VI, Section 27 of the 1987
Constitution reading.
 Paragraph (1) refers to the general veto power of the President and if exercised would
result in the veto of the entire bill, as a general rule.
 Paragraph (2) is what is referred to as the item-veto power or the line-veto power. It allows
the exercise of the veto over a particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff
bill.
 Notwithstanding the elimination in Article VI, Section 27 (2) of the 1987 Constitution of any
reference to the veto of a provision, the extent of the President’s veto power as previously
defined by the 1935 Constitution has not changed.
 This is because the eliminated proviso merely pronounces the basic principle that a distinct
and severable part of a bill may be the subject of a separate veto.
 The assailed provisions are not provisions in the budgetary sense of the term.
 They are inappropriate provisions that should be treated as items for the purpose of the
President’s veto power.
 Congress had the power to override the veto on both sections by having a 2/3 vote of
approval by members of each House, but Congress did not choose to do so.
OID
 GONZALES v MACARAIG
 The constitutionality of the assailed Presidential veto is UPHELD.
 The presidential veto on Section 55 of GAA for the fiscal year 1989 and Section 16 of the
GAA for the fiscal year 1990 is constitutional. These sections were vetoed because they
violate Section 5(5) of Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution.
 Explicit is the requirement that a provision in the Appropriations Bill should relate
specifically to some" particular appropriation"
 Consequently, Section 55 (FY ‘89) and Section 16 (FY ‘90) although labelled as "provisions,"
are actually inappropriate provisions that should be treated as items for the purpose of the
President’s veto power.
SECTION 27
BENGZON v DRILON
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1992aprildecisions.php?id=168

EN BANC

G.R. NO. 103524

APRIL 15, 1992

CESAR BENGZON, Petitioner

v. HON. FRANKLIN DRILON in his capacity as Executive Secretary, Respondent

Lino M. Patajo for petitioners

GUTIERREZ, JR., 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 PD 644 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.
 The respondents are sued in their official capacities, being officials of the Executive
Department involved in the implementation of the release of funds appropriated in the
Annual Appropriations Law.
 Realizing the unfairness of the discrimination against the members of the Judiciary and the
Constitutional Commissions, RA 1797 was restored through HB 16297 in 1990.
 President Aquino, however vetoed House Bill No. 16297 on July 11, 1990 on the ground that
according to her
 "it would erode the very foundation of the Government’s collective effort to adhere
faithfully to and enforce strictly the policy on standardization of compensation as
articulated in Republic Act No. 6758 known as Compensation and Position Classification Act
of 1989.

ISSUE
 WON the veto of the President on that portion of the General Appropriations bill is
constitutional.

HELD
 The veto is unconstitutional.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED.

The questioned veto is SET ASIDE as illegal and unconstitutional.
The vetoed provisions of the 1992 Appropriations Act are declared valid and subsisting.
RATIO
 The act of the Executive in vetoing the particular provisions is an exercise of a
constitutionally vested power.
 But even as the Constitution grants the power, it also provides limitations to its exercise.
The veto power is not absolute.
 "The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an
appropriation, revenue or tariff bill but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which
he does not object." (Section 27(2), Article VI, Constitution)
 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.
 An ‘item’ of an appropriation bill obviously means an item which in itself is a specific
appropriation of money, not some general provision of law, which happens to be put into an
appropriation bill.
 An examination of the entire sections and the underlined portions of the law which were
vetoed will readily show that portions of the item have been chopped up into vetoed and
unvetoed parts.
 Moreover, the vetoed portions are not items. They are provisions.
 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.
 It turns out, however, that P. D. No. 644 never became valid law.
 If P. D. No. 644 was not law, it follows that Rep. Act No. 1797 was not repealed and
continues to be effective up to the present.
 The Justices of the Court have vested rights to the accrued pension that is due to them in
accordance to Republic Act 1797.

OID
 Gonzales v. Macaraig
 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. (Sec 27(2) of Art 6)
 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.