University of the Philippines College of Law

Block F2022 - Consti

Topic CONGRESS
Legislative Process
Case No. 101
Case Name Bengzon v Drilon
Ponente GUTIERREZ, JR., J.

RELEVANT FACTS

 The petitioners are retired Justices of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals who are
currently receiving monthly pensions under Republic Act No. 910 as amended by Republic Act
No. 1797.

 Named respondents are Hon. Franklin Drilon the Executive Secretary, Hon. Guillermo Carague
as Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management, and Hon. Rosalina Cajucom, the
Treasurer of the Philippines. 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.

 On June 20, 1953, Republic Act No. 910 was enacted to provide the retirement pensions of
Justices of the Supreme Court and of the Court of Appeals who have rendered at least twenty
(20) years service either in the Judiciary or in any other branch of the Government or in both,
having attained the age of seventy (70) years or who resign by reason of incapacity to discharge
the duties of the office.

 January 25, 1975 - President Marcos issued Presidential Decree 644 repealing Section 3A of
Republic Act No. 1797 and Republic Act No. 3595 (amending Republic Act No. 1568 and
Presidential Decree No. 578) 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.

 1990 - Congress approved House Bill No. 16297 for the reenactment of the repealed provisions
of Republic Act No. 1797 and Republic Act No. 3595. Congress was under the impression that
Presidential Decree 644 became law after it was published in the Official Gazette on April 7,
1977.

 July 11, 1990 - President Aquino vetoed House Bill No. 16297 on the ground that fail to enforce
strictly the policy on standardization of compensation as articulated in Republic Act No. 6758
known as Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.

 Petitioners reasoned out that Presidential Decree 644 repealing Republic Act No. 1797 did not
become law as there was no valid publication pursuant to Tañada v. Tuvera.

 In a Resolution dated November 28, 1991 the Court acted favorably on the request. Congress
included in the General Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 1992 certain appropriations for the
Judiciary intended for the payment of the adjusted pension rates due the retired Justices of the
Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.
 University of the Philippines College of Law
Block F2022 - Consti

 January 15, 1992 - President vetoed portions of the Special Provisions for the Supreme Court of
the Philippines and the Lower Courts and portions of the Special Provisions for the Court of
Appeals and the portions of Section 1.3 of Article XLV of the Special Provisions of the General
Fund Adjustments.

Reason given for the veto - “the resolution of this Honorable Court in Administrative Matter No.
918225CA pursuant to which the foregoing appropriations for the payment of the retired justices
of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals have been enacted effectively nullified the veto
of the President of House Bill No. 16297.1

ISSUE

WON
The issue in this petition is the constitutionality of the veto
by the President of certain provisions in the General
Appropriations Act for the Fiscal Year 1992 relating to the
payment of the adjusted pensions of retired Justices of the
Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals.

RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue 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.

In the exercise of the veto power, it is generally all or nothing. However,

when it comes to appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, the Administration
needs the money to run the machinery of government and it can not veto
the entire bill even if it may contain objectionable features. The President
is, therefore, compelled to approve into law the entire bill, including its
undesirable parts. It is for this reason that the Constitution has wisely
provided the “item veto power” to avoid inexpedient riders being
attached to an indispensable appropriation or revenue measure.

The Constitution provides that only “The terms item and provision in
budgetary legislation and practice are concededly different.

An item in a bill refers to the particulars, the details, the distinct and
severable parts x x x of the bill (Bengzon, supra, at 916.) It is an
indivisible sum of money dedicated to a stated purpose.

1
Bill which provided for the automatic increase in the retirement pensions of the Justices of the Supreme Court and the
Court of Appeals and chairmen of the Constitutional Commissions by reenacting Republic Act No. 1797 and Republic
Act No. 3595.
 University of the Philippines College of Law
Block F2022 - Consti

The United States Supreme Court, in the case of Bengzon v. Secretary

of Justice (299 U.S. 410, 414, 57 Ct 252, 81
L. Ed., 312) declared ‘that 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.’

The vetoed portions are not items. They are provisions

RULING

NO SEPARATE OPINION