PHILCONSA VS.

ENRIQUEZ
G.R. No. 113105, August 19 1994, 235 SCRA 506
FACTS:
House Bill No. 10900, the General Appropriation Bill of 1994 (GAB of 1994), was
passed and approved by both houses of Congress on December 17, 1993. As
passed, it imposed conditions and limitations on certain items of appropriations
in the proposed budget previously submitted by the President. It also authorized
members of Congress to propose and identify projects in the "pork barrels"
allotted to them and to realign their respective operating budgets.

On December 30, 1993, the President signed the bill into law, making it as
Republic Act No. 7663, entitled "AN ACT APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE
OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES FROM JANUARY ONE TO
DECEMBER THIRTY ONE, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND NINETY-FOUR, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES" (GAA of 1994). On the same day, the President delivered his
Presidential Veto Message, specifying the provisions of the bill he vetoed and on
which he imposed certain conditions.

Petitioners assail the special provision allowing a member of Congress to realign

his allocation for operational expenses to any other expense category claiming
that it violates Section 25, Article 7 of the Constitution. Issues of constitutionality
were raised before the Supreme Court.

Petition prayed for a writ of prohibition to declare unconstitutional and void the
provision under Article 16 of the Countrywide Development Fund and the veto of
the President of the Special provision of Art XLVIII of the GAA of 1994.

There were 16 members of the Senate who sought for the issuance of writs of
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the Executive Secretary, the
Secretary of Department of Budget and Management and the National Treasurer
and questions the constitutionality of the conditions imposed by the President in
the items of the GAA of 1994 as well as the constitutionality of the veto of the
special provision in the appropriation for debt services.

Senator Tanada and Senator Romulo sought the issuance of the writs of
prohibition and mandamus against the same respondents. Petitioners contest the
constitutionality of (1) the 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 the implementation of certain appropriations for the CAFGUs,
DPWH, and National Highway Authority

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Congress have the legal standing to question the validity of
acts of the Executive.

HELD:
The Court held that the members of Congress have the legal standing to
question the validity of acts of the Executive which injures them in their person
or the institution of Congress to which they belong. In the latter case, the acts
cause derivative but nonetheless substantial injury which can be questioned by
members of Congress. In the absence of a claim that the contract in question
violated the rights of petitioners or impermissibly intruded into the domain of the
Legislature, petitioners have no legal standing to institute the instant action in
their capacity as members of Congress.