I.

Reference
a. Subject
7126 - JD 114 | Legal Research and Writing

b. Topic
Article 2, Civil Code of the Philippines

c. Title
CESAR BENGZON, QUERUBE MAKALINTAL, LINO M. PATAJO, JOSE LEUTERIO, ET
AL., petitioners, vs. HON. FRANKLIN N. DRILON in his capacity as Executive
Secretary; HON. GUILLERMO CARAGUE in his capacity as Secretary of
Department of Budget and Management, and HON. ROSALINA CAJUCOM in her
capacity as National Treasurer, respondents.

d. Citation
G.R. No. 103524. April 15, 1992

II. Body
a. Facts
The petitioners are former justices of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
who are now collecting pensions in accordance with Republic Act 910, as revised
by Republic Act 1797. The pension of retired justices, officers, and enlisted
personnel of the AFP was modified after President Marcos's administration issued
a decree to annul section 3-A of Republic Act 1797 (RA1797), which authorized
the adjustment. Eventually, Marcos issued PD 1638, which provided for the
automatic adjustments of the pensions of officers and enlisted personnel.

However, the pensions of retiring justices were not restored. In 1990, RA 1797
was brought back into effect by means of HB 16297. In 1990, the President of the
Philippines issued a veto that is now being challenged in this petition. At the
time, her aides misinformed her that the clauses in dispute in the GAA from 1992
were an attempt to override her earlier veto from that year. It has come to light
that Presidential Decree 644, which was supposed to have the effect of repealing
Republic Act 1797, never became a legal law because it was never published;
hence, there was no law. As a consequence of this, RA 1797 was still in force, and
HB 16297 was pointless because it attempted to restore benefits that could not
have been lawfully withheld in the first place. The veto of House Bill 16297 did
not result in any significant change either.

b. Issues
Whether or not PD 644 was effective during the time in question

c. Ruling
No, PD 644 never became a law.
The Tañada v. Tuvera case (136 SCRA 27 [1985] and 146 SCRA 446 [1986]) held
that “all laws shall immediately upon their approval or as soon thereafter as
possible, be published in full in the Official Gazette, to become effective only
after fifteen days from their publication, or on another date specified by the
legislature, in accordance with Article 2 of the Civil Code".

Thus, the Court holds that PD 644 never became a law as it was not validly
published; therefore, it did not repeal RA 1797.

The requesting justices are therefore entitled to be paid their monthly pensions
on the basis of RA 1797, which remains valid up to date.