PASCUAL vs.

SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS

110 PHIL 331
GR No. L-10405, December 29, 1960

DOCTRINE:
"A law appropriating the public revenue is invalid if the public advantage or benefit,
derived from such expenditure, is merely incidental in the promotion of a particular
enterprise."
FACTS:
Governor Wenceslao Pascual of Rizal instituted this action for declaratory relief, with
injunction, upon the ground that RA No. 920, which apropriates funds for public works
particularly for the construction and improvement of Pasig feeder road terminals. Some
of the feeder roads, however, as alleged and as contained in the tracings attached to
the petition, were nothing but projected and planned subdivision roads, not yet
constructed within the Antonio Subdivision, belonging to private respondent Zulueta,
situated at Pasig, Rizal; and which projected feeder roads do not connect any
government property or any important premises to the main highway. The respondents'
contention is that there is public purpose because people living in the subdivision will
directly be benefitted from the construction of the roads, and the government also gains
from the donation of the land supposed to be occupied by the streets, made by its
owner to the government.
ISSUE:
Whether incidental gains by the public can be considered "public purpose" for the
purpose of justifying an expenditure of the government?
HELD:
No. It is a general rule that the legislature is without power to appropriate public revenue
for anything but a public purpose. It is the essential character of the direct object of the
expenditure which must determine its validity as justifying a tax, and not the magnitude
of the interest to be affected nor the degree to which the general advantage of the
community, and thus the public welfare, may be ultimately benefited by their promotion.
Incidental to the public or to the state, which results from the promotion of private
interest and the prosperity of private enterprises or business, does not justify their aid by
the use public money.
The test of the constitutionality of a statute requiring the use of public funds is whether
the statute is designed to promote the public interest, as opposed to the furtherance of
the advantage of individuals, although each advantage to individuals might incidentally
serve the public.