Philippine Constitution Association vsEnriquez

Political Law Veto Power Part of the Legislative Process

FACTS:
This is a consolidation of cases which sought to question the veto authority of
thepresident involving the General Appropriations Act of 1994. This case also
involves the powerof Congress as far as the pork barrel fund is concerned. Philippine
Constitution Association(PHILCONSA) questions the countrywide development
fund. PHILCONSA said that Congresscan only allocate funds but they cannot
specify the items as to which those funds would be applied for since that is
already the function of the executive. In another case, after thevetoing by the president of
some provisions of the GAA of 1994, neither house of congresstook steps to override
the veto. Instead, Senators Taada and Romulo sought the issuance ofthe writs
of prohibition and mandamus against the same respondents in G.R. No. 113766. Inthis
petition, petitioners contest the constitutionality of: (1) the veto on four
specialprovisions 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); and (2) the conditions imposedby the President in the
implementation of certain appropriations for the CAFGUs, the DPWH, and the
National Housing Authority (NHA).
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Presidents veto is valid.
HELD:
In the PHILCONSA petition, the SC ruled that Congress acted within its power. In
theTaada petitions the SC dismissed the other petitions and granted
the others.
Veto on special provisions
The president did his veto with certain conditions and compliant to the ruling
in
Gonzales vsMacaraig.
The president particularly vetoed the debt reduction scheme in the GAA of
1994commenting that the scheme is already taken cared of by other
legislation and may be moreproperly addressed by revising the debt policy.
He, however did not delete theP86,323,438,000.00 appropriation therefor. Taada et
al averred that the president cannotvalidly veto that provision w/o vetoing the amount
allotted therefor. The veto of the presidentherein is sustained for the vetoed provision is
considered inappropriate; in fact the Sc found
that such provision if not vetoed would in effect repeal the Foreign Borrowing Act
making thelegislation as a log-rolling legislation.
Veto of provisions for revolving funds of SUCs
The appropriation for State Universities and Colleges (SUCs), the President
vetoed specialprovisions which authorize the use of income and the creation,
operation and maintenance ofrevolving funds was likewise vetoed. The reason
for the veto is that there were already fundsallotted for the same in the

National expenditure Program. Taada et al claimed this as unconstitutional. The

SC ruled that the veto is valid for it is in compliant to the One FundPolicy
it avoided double funding and redundancy.
Veto of provision on 70% (administrative)/30% (contract) ratio for roadmaintenance
The President vetoed this provision on the basis that it may result to a
breach of contractualobligations. The funds if allotted may result to abandonment of
some existing contracts. TheSC ruled that this Special Provision in question is not an
inappropriate provision which can bethe subject of a veto. It is not alien to the
appropriation for road maintenance, and on theother hand, it specifies how the said
item shall be expended 70% by administrative and30% by contract. The
1987 Constitution allows the addition by Congress of specialprovisions,
conditions to items in an expenditure bill, which cannot be vetoed separately
fromthe items to which they relate so long as they are appropriate in the
budgetary sense. Theveto herein is then not valid.
Veto of provision on prior approval of Congress for purchase of military equipment
As reason for the veto, the President stated that the said condition and prohibition
violate theConstitutional mandate of non-impairment of contractual obligations, and if
allowed, shalleffectively alter the original intent of the AFP Modernization Fund to
cover all militaryequipment deemed necessary to modernize the AFP. The SC
affirmed the veto. Anyprovision blocking an administrative action in
implementing a law or requiring legislativeapproval of executive acts must be
incorporated in a separate and substantive bill.
Therefore,being inappropriate provisions.
Veto of provision on use of savings to augment AFP pension funds
According to the President, the grant of retirement and separation benefits should be
coveredby direct appropriations specifically approved for the purpose pursuant to Section
29(1) of Article VI of the Constitution. Moreover, he stated that the authority to
use savings is lodgedin the officials enumerated in Section 25(5) of Article VI of the
Constitution. The SC retainedthe veto per reasons provided by the president.
Condition on the deactivation of the CAFGUs
Congress appropriated compensation for the CAFGUs including the payment
of separationbenefits. The President declared in his Veto Message that the
implementation of this SpecialProvision to the item on the CAFGUs shall be
subject to prior Presidential approval pursuant to P.D. No. 1597 and R.A. No.
6758. The SC ruled to retain the veto per reasons provided bythe president. Further, if
this provision is allowed the it would only lead to the repeal of saidexisting
laws.
Conditions on the appropriation for the Supreme Court, etc
In his veto message: The said condition is consistent with the Constitutional
injunctionprescribed under Section 8, Article IX-B of the Constitutional which states
that no elective orappointive public officer or employee shall receive
additional, double, or indirectcompensation unless specifically authorized
by law. I am, therefore, confident that the headsof the said offices shall
maintain fidelity to the law and faithfully adhere to the well-established
principle on compensation standardization. Taada et al claim that the

conditionsimposed by the President violated the independence and fiscal

autonomy of the Supremecourt, the Ombudsman, the COA and the CHR. The
SC sustained the veto: In the first place,the conditions questioned by
petitioners were placed in the GAB by Congress itself, not bythe President.
The Veto Message merely highlighted the Constitutional mandate
thatadditional or indirect compensation can only be given pursuant to law. In
the second place,such statements are mere reminders that the disbursements
of appropriations must be madein accordance with law. Such statements may,
at worse, be treated as superfluities