PASCUAL vs.

SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS

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

FACTS:
Wenceslao Pascual (then Provincial Governor of Rizal) instituted this action for declaratory relief
with a prayer for injunction on the ground that RA 920 (an act appropriating funds for public works). This
is because Pascual alleges that one item wrongfully allotted P85,000 for the construction, repair, and
improvement of Pasig feeder road terminals and subdivisions. This is because the roads to be improved
were still the private property of then Senator Zulueta, albeit to be donated on the condition that the roads
in question be used for street purposes only. Zulueta is the owner of several parcels of land in Pasig,
Rizal, known as the Antonio Subdivision, certain portions of which had been reserved for the projected
feeder roads, which were private property when RA 290 was enacted by Congress. Pascual also prays
that the donation be declared void ab initio for being violative of the Constitutional prohibition on members
of Congress from being directly or indirectly interested financially in any contract with the government. He
also alleges that the construction of the roads using public funds would “relieve him [Sen. Zulueta] from
the burden of constructing his subdivision streets or roads at his own expense”. Respondents moved to
dismiss on the ground that petitioner had no capacity to sue (also mentioned in the motion to dismiss is
“movant is not aware of any law which makes illegal the appropriation of public funds for the improvement
of what we, in the meantime, may assume as private property”. The lower court acted in favor of the
respondents, upholding the validity of the appropriation on the ground that petitioner Pascual, not being
directly affected, had no capacity to question the donation made by Sen. Zulueta.

ISSUE: Whether incidental gains by the public is considered a "public purpose" for the purpose of
justifying an expenditure of the government.

HELD:
No, it cannot be considered a “public purpose”. 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 of 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