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 Treasure
G.R. 103524 | APRIL 15, 1992 | Gutierrez Jr., J. | Munar
RECIT READY NOTES:
 The Petitioners were retired justices of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals who questions 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.
 RA 910 as amended by RA 1797 provides for retirement pensions of Justices of the Supreme Court and
of the Court of Appeals. This was later repealed by series of Presidential Decrees issued by President
Marcos Sr. by equally granting the amount of retirement pension received by retired Justices of SC and
CA to retired officers of the AFP.
 Congress saw this unfairness and later issued HB 16297 to recover the repealed provisions for the
retirement pensions of the retired Justices of SC and CA. This was later veto-ed by President Aquino as
it is "erroneous to the efforts of the government on the implementation of the policy standardization on
RA 6758.
 Court held after series of examinations that the rationale behind the veto which implies that Justices and
Constitutional officers are unduly favored is again a misimpression that a PD issued by President
Marcos Sr. passed into law, but in the first place, did not.

DOCTRINE
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.

The pertinent provision of the Constitution reads:

"The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue or
tariff bill but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does not object." (Section 27(2), Article
VI, Constitution)

FACTS
The petitioners are retired Justices of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals who are currently receiving
monthly pensions under Republic Act No. 910 as amended by Republic Act No. 1797. They filed the instant
petition on their own behalf and in representation of all other retired Justices of the Supreme Court and the
Court of Appeals similarly situated.

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

RA 910 provides the retirement pensions of Justices of the Supreme Court and of the Court of Appeals who
have rendered at least twenty (20) years of 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.
The retired Justice shall receive during the residue of his natural life the salary which he was receiving at the
time of his retirement or resignation.

Amended by RA 1797 (approved on June 21, 1957) In case the salary of Justices of the SC and CA is
increased or decreased, such increased or decreased shall be deemed to be the salary or the retirement
pension which a Justice who as of June 12, 1954 had ceased to be such, cease to accept another position in
the government, or retired as receiving at the time of his cessation in office. Benefits received prior such
increase or decrease will not be affected.

(November 12, 1974) President Marcos Sr. passed PD 578 extended similar retirement benefits to the members
of the Armed Forces giving them also the automatic readjustment features of Republic Act No. 1797 and
Republic Act No. 359

(January 25, 1975) President Marcos Sr. issued PD 644 repealing Section 3-A of RA 1797 and RA 3595 (which
amended RA 1568 and RA 3595) 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.
PD 1638 automatic readjustment of retirement pension of officers and enlisted men subsequently restored
by President Marcos Sr. Subsequently, PD 9109 was issued providing for readjustment of the same for
those retired prior September 10, 1979.

Adjustments of the retirement pensions in AFP was restored leaving the same for the retired Justices of
Supreme Court and Court of Appeals unrestored.

(1990) Congress, under the impression that Presidential Decree 644 became law after it was published in the
Official Gazette on April 7, 1977, saw the unfairness and later approved HB 16297 for the reenactment of the
repealed provisions of RA 1797 and RA 3595

(July 11, 1990) President Aquino vetoed HB 16297, by reason that "it would erode foundation of the
Government's collective effort to adhere with policy on standardization of compensation articulated in RA 6758
"Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989" (not granting privileges to selected group of officials
whose retirement benefits already enjoy preferential treatment over vast majority of civil service)

Prior instant petition, Retired CA Justice Barcelona et al. asked this Court for readjustment of monthly
pensions by reason that PD 644 did not become a law since there is no valid publication pursuant to
Tanada v. Tuvera (Currently Art 2, Civil Code of the Philippines)

(January 15, 1992) The President vetoed:

1. The underlined portions of Section 1 and the entire Section 4 of the Special Provisions for the Supreme
Court of the Philippines and;
2. The Lower Courts (General Appropriations Act, FY 1992, page 1071) and;
3. The underlined portions of Section 1 and the entire Section 2, of the Special Provisions for the Court of
Appeals (page 1079) and;
4. The underlined portions of Section 1.3 of Article XLV of the Special Provisions of the General Fund
Adjustments (page 1164, General Appropriations Act, FY 1992).
The reason given for the veto of said provisions is that "the resolution of this Honorable Court in Administrative
Matter No. 91-8-225-CA 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, the 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 re-
enacting Republic Act No. 1797 and Republic Act No. 3595.

Petitioners assails the following:

1. Subject veto is not an item veto
2. Veto by the Executive is violative of the doctrine of separation of powers;
3. Veto deprives the retired justices of their rights to the pensions due them;
4. Questioned veto impairs the Fiscal Autonomy guaranteed by the Constitution

ISSUES
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

RULING
1. Misimpressions or unfortunately wrong advice must have been the basis of the disputed veto. It was the
impression that Presidential Decree No. 644 had reduced the pensions of Justices and Constitutional
Commissioners which led Congress to restore the repealed provisions through House Bill No. 16297 in
1990. When her finance and budget advisers gave the wrong information that the questioned provisions
is the 1992 General Appropriations Act were simply an attempt to overcome her earlier 1990 veto, she
issued the veto now challenged in this petition.

Neither may the veto power of the President be exercised as a means of repealing RA 1797. This is
arrogating unto the Presidency legislative powers which are beyond its authority. The President has no
power to enact or amend statutes promulgated by her predecessors much less to repeal existing laws. The
President's power is merely to execute the laws as passed by Congress

To be clear, what were really vetoed are:

o Republic Act No. 1797 enacted as early as June 21, 1957; and
o The Resolution of the Supreme Court dated November 28, 1991 in Administrative Matter No. 91-8-225-
CA.

2. The attempt to use the veto power to set aside a Resolution of this Court and to deprive retirees of
benefits given them by Rep. Act No. 1797 trenches upon the constitutional grant of fiscal autonomy to
the Judiciary. In the instant case, the vetoed provisions which relate to the use of savings for augmenting
items for the payment of the pension differentials, among others, are clearly in consonance with the
above stated pronouncements of the Court. The veto impairs the power of the Chief Justice to augment
other items in the Judiciary's appropriation, in contravention of the constitutional provision on "fiscal
autonomy".
3. It cannot be denied that the retired Justices have a vested right to the accrued pensions due them
pursuant to RA 1797. All that the retirees ask is to be given the benefits granted by law. To characterize
them as engaging in "robbery" is intemperate, abrasive, and disrespectful more so because the argument
is unfounded. As claimed that the research and legal basis made and researched by OSG are found to be
irrelevant and outdated.

Supreme Court held the petition GRANTED. The questioned veto is SET ASIDE as it is illegal and
unconstitutional. Respondents are ordered to automatically and regularly release the grant of fiscal autonomy
the funds appropriated for the subject pensions.