Philconsa vs. Enriquez, G.R. No.

113105, August 19, 1994

Facts:
This is a controversy that arises from the clash between the power of the purse
and the sword. The premise of the case anchored on the Power to veto of the
President during the passage of a bill into law. The facts of the case transpired as
follows:

The General Appropriation Bill of 1994 was passed and approved by both
chambers of the Congress. It imposed conditions and limitations on certain items of
appropriations in the proposed budget that was previously presented by the president.
Apart from that, the act authorized members of the Congress to propose and identify
projects for them to realign the operating budgets. Eventually the bill became a law as
the president signed it but on that same day while the bill was enacted into a law, the
president delivered his Veto Message specifying the provisions of the Bill he vetoed
on and imposed certain conditions. Among the provisions that have to be changed
pursuant to the president's veto are the following: veto of provisions for revolving
funds of State Universities and Colleges (The president disallowed the State
Universities to create revolving funds but allowed National Stud Farm) and among
other things. The petitioner asserted that the President has no power to amend the
proposed budget fixed by Congress. Moreso has no right to refuse to impound for
whatever reasons to spend funds made available by Congress. Consequently, the
President will be duty-bound to implement the project and to spend the money
allocated for it. With the locus standi of the petitioners and their relentless pursuit of
shedding light in the legal controversy, the high court has to answer the issue. They
challenged the constitutionality of the conditions imposed by the President in the
items of the GAA of 1994, including the veto on four special provisions added to
items in the GAA of 1994 for the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the
Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).

Issue:
Whether or not the President exceeded his item-veto power accorded by the
Constitution.

Ruling:
Ruling: No, The restrictive interpretation urged by petitioners that the
President may not veto a provision without vetoing the entire bill not only disregards
the basic principle that a distinct and severable part of a bill may be the subject of a
separate veto but also overlooks the Constitutional mandate that any provision in the
general appropriations bill shall relate specifically to some particular appropriation
therein and that any such provision shall be limited in its operation to the
appropriation to which it relates. In other words, a provision in an Appropriations Bill
is limited in its operation to some particular appropriation to which it relates, and
does not relate to the entire bill. Moreover, the vetoed provision is clearly an attempt
to repeal Section 31 of P.D. No. 1177 (Foreign Borrowing Act) and E.O. No. 292, and
to reverse the debt payment policy. The repeal of these laws should be done in a
separate law, not in the appropriations law. The petition is dismissed, except with
respect to the prayer for the annulment of the veto of the special provision on debt
service specifying that the fund therein appropriated "shall be used for payment of
the principal and interest of foreign and domestic indebtedness" prohibiting the use
of the said funds "to pay for the liabilities of the Central Bank Board of Liquidators