POWER OF TAXATION

1. Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works

(G.R. No. L-10405, 29 December 1960)

FACTS:
On 20 June 1953, Republic Act No. 920, entitled "An Act Appropriating Funds for Public Works"
was approved by the President. Contained in section 1-C (a) thereof was an item (43[h]) of P85,000.00 "for
the construction, reconstruction, repair, extension and improvement" of Pasig feeder road terminals.
Petitioner Wenceslao Pascual, then governor of Rizal, contended that at the time of the passage and
approval of said Act, the aforementioned feeder roads were "nothing but projected and planned subdivision
roads, not yet constructed, . . . within the Antonio Subdivision . . . situated at . . . Pasig, Rizal" which
projected feeder roads "do not connect any government property or any important premises to the main
highway". He alleged that that the aforementioned Antonio Subdivision (as well as the lands on which said
feeder roads were to be construed) were private properties of respondent Jose C. Zulueta, who, at the time
of the passage and approval of said Act, was a member of the Senate of the Philippines.

ISSUE: Whether or not the appropriation is null and void.

RULING: Yes, the appropriation is null and void.

It is a general rule that the legislature is without power to appropriate public revenue for anything
but a public purpose. Incidental to the public or to the state, which results from the promotion of private
interest and the prosperity of private enterprises or business, does not justify their aid by the use public
money. Money raised by taxation can be expended only for public purposes and not for the advantage of
private individuals.
The legality of the appropriation in question depended upon whether said roads were public or
private property when the bill, which, later on, became Republic Act 920, was passed by Congress, or,
when said bill was approved by the President and the disbursement of said sum became effective, or on
June 20, 1953.
The land on which the projected feeder roads were to be constructed belonged then to respondent
Zulueta. The property, in short, was private when the bill was passed by Congress. The said appropriation
then sought a private purpose, and hence, was null and void. The donation to the Government for the
purpose of “legalizing” did not cure its aforementioned basic defect.