CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Constitutional Construction, Nature and Concepts

The 1987 Constitution

Petitioners, PHILCONSA v. Respondents, Enriquez

G.R. No. 113105 : August 19, 1994
J. QUIASON

FACTS:

1. The General Appropriations Act (GAB 1994) or RA 7663 was passed by the Congress
and signed by the President into law, but with certain provisions he vetoed and imposed
certain condition authorizing the AFP Chief of Staff to use savings to augment the
pension funds under Retirement and Separation Benefits of the AFP.

2. The petitioners prayed for a writ of prohibition to declare as unconstitutional and void:
(a) Article XLI on the Countrywide Development Fund, the special provision in Article I
entitled Realignment of Allocation for Operational Expenses, and Article XLVIII on the
Appropriation for Debt Service or the amount appropriated under said Article XLVIII in
excess of the P37.9 Billion allocated for the Department of Education, Culture and
Sports; and (b) the veto of the President of the Special Provision of Article XLVIII of the
GAA of 1994, in claims that only the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives are authorized under the Constitution to realign savings, not the
individual members of Congress themselves.

ISSUES:

Whether or not RA 7663 violated Article 4, Sec. 25 (5) of the 1987 Constitution.

RULING:

YES. The Petition is GRANTED.

DOCTRINE:
The conditions of AFP’s authorization to use savings imposed by the President is violative of of
Sections 25(5) and 29(1) of the Article VI of the Constitution. Only the Senate President,
Speaker of the House, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional
Commissions are authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their
respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations. The list of those
who may be authorized to transfer funds is exclusive. The AFP Chief of Staff may not be given
authority.