Art 7 Sec 1 PCAvs Enriquez

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 7/27/2019 Art 7 Sec 1 PCAvs Enriquez

    1/2

    235 SCRA 506

    Philippine Constitution Association, petitioner

    vs.

    Enriquez, respondent

    Facts:

    RA 7663 (former House bill No. 10900, the General Appropriations Bill of 1994)

    entitled An Act Appropriating Funds for the Operation of the Government of thePhilippines from January 1 to December 1, 1994, and for other Purposes was

    approved by the President and vetoed some of the provisions.

    Petitioners assail the special provision allowing a member of Congress to realignhis allocation for operational expenses to any other expense category claiming that

    it violates Sec. 25, Art 7 of the Constitution. Issues of constitutionality were raisedbefore the Supreme Court.

    PhilConsA prayed for a writ of prohibition to declare unconstitutional and void a.)

    Art 16 on the Countrywide Development Fund and b.) The veto of the President ofthe Special provision of Art XLVIII of the GAA of 1994.

    16 members of the Senate sought the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and

    mandamus against the Exec. Secretary, the Sec of Dept of Budget andManagement and the National Treasurer and questions: 1.) Constitutionality of the

    conditions imposed by the President in the items of the GAA of 1994 and 2.) theconstitutionality of the veto of the special provision in the appropriation for debt

    services.

    Senators Tanada and Romulo sought the issuance of the writs of prohibition and

    mandamus against the same respondents. Petitioners contest the constitutionality

    of: 1.) veto on four special provisions added to items in the GAA of 1994 for the

    AFP and DPWH; and 2.) the conditions imposed by the President in theimplementation of certain appropriations for the CAFGUs, DPWH, and NatlHighway Authority.

    Issue:

  • 7/27/2019 Art 7 Sec 1 PCAvs Enriquez

    2/2

    Whether or not the veto of the president on four special provisions is constitutionaland valid?

    Held:

    Special Provision on Debt CeilingCongress provided for a debt-ceiling. Vetoedby the Pres. w/o vetoing the entire appropriation for debt service. The said

    provisions are germane to & have direct relation w/ debt service. They areappropriate provisions & cannot be vetoed w/o vetoing the entireitem/appropriation. VETO VOID.

    Special Provision on Revolving Funds for SCUs said provision allows for theuse of income & creation of revolving fund for SCUs. Provision for Western

    Visayas State Univ. & Leyte State Colleges vetoed by Pres. Other SCUs enjoying

    the privilege do so by existing law. Pres. merely acted in pursuance to existing law.VETO VALID.

    Special Provision on Road MaintenanceCongress specified 30% ratio fo worksfor maintenance of roads be contracted according to guidelines set forth by DPWH.

    Vetoed by the Pres. w/o vetoing the entire appropriation. It is not an inappropriateprovision; it is not alien to the subj. of road maintenance & cannot be veoted w/ovetoing the entire appropriation. VETO VOID.

    Special Provision on Purchase of Military Equip.AFP modernization, prior

    approval of Congress required before release of modernization funds. It is the so-called legislative veto. Any prov. blocking an admin. action in implementing a lawor requiring legislative approval must be subj. of a separate law. VETO VALID.

    Special Provision on Use of Savings for AFP Pensionsallows Chief of Staff to

    augment pension funds through the use of savings. According to the Consttution,

    only the Pres. may exercise such power pursuant to a specific law. Properly vetoed.VETO VALID.

    Special Provision on Conditions for de-activation of CAFGUs use of special

    fund for the compensation of the said CAFGUs. Vetoed, Pres. requires his priorapproval. It is also an amendment to existing law (PD No. 1597 & RA No. 6758).A provision in an appropriation act cannot be used to repeal/amend existing laws.VETO VALID.