Philippine Constitution v. Enriquez
Philippine Constitution v. Enriquez
ON AUDIT, respondents.
_______________
* EN BANC.
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
507
Philippine Constitution Association vs. Enriquez
G.R. No. 113105. August 19, 1994.* VOL. 235, AUGUST 19, 1994 507
Philippine Constitution Association vs. Enriquez
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION, EXEQUIEL
B. GARCIA and RAMON A. GONZALES, petitioners, vs. G.R. No. 113888. August 19, 1994.*
HON. SALVADOR ENRIQUEZ, as Secretary of Budget and
Management; HON. VICENTE T. TAN, as National WIGBERTO E. TAÑADA and ALBERTO G. ROMULO, as
Treasurer and COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondents. Members of the Philippine Senate and as taxpayers,
petitioners, vs. HON. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR., in
his capacity as Executive Secretary, HON. SALVADOR
G.R. No. 113174. August 19, 1994.* ENRIQUEZ, JR., in his capacity as Secretary of the
Department of Budget and Management, HON. CARIDAD
RAUL S. ROCO, as Member of the Philippine Senate, VALDEHUESA, in her capacity as National Treasurer, and
NEPTALI A. GONZALES, as Chairman of the Committee on THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondents.
Finance of the Philippine Senate, and EDGARDO J.
ANGARA, as President and Chief Executive of the Constitutional Law; Judicial Review, requisites.—When
Philippine Senate, all of whom also sue as taxpayers, in issues of constitutionality are raised, the Court can exercise its
their own behalf and in representation of Senators power of judicial review only if the following requisites are
HEHERSON ALVAREZ, AGAPITO A. AQUINO, RODOLFO compresent: (1) the existence of an actual and appropriate case;
G. BIAZON, JOSE D. LINA, JR., ERNESTO F. HERRERA, (2) a personal and substantial interest of the party raising the
BLAS F. OPLE, JOHN H. OSMEÑA, GLORIA constitutional question; (3) the exercise of judicial review is pleaded
MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, VICENTE C. SOTTO III, ARTURO at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the constitutional question is the
M. TOLENTINO, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, WIGBERTO E. lis mota of the case (Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department of
TAÑADA and FREDDIE N. WEBB, petitioners, vs. THE Agrarian Reform, 192 SCRA 51 [1990]; Dumlao v. Commission on
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF Elections, 95 SCRA 392 [1980]; People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 56 [1937]).
BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, and
THE NATIONAL TREASURER, THE COMMISSION ON
Same; Same; Veto Power; Parties; A member of Congress has
AUDIT, impleaded herein as an unwilling co-petitioner,
the legal standing to question the validity of a presidential veto or
respondents.
any other act of the Executive which injures the institution of
G.R. No. 113766. August 19, 1994.* Congress.—We rule that a member of the Senate, and of the
House of Representatives for that matter, has the legal standing
to question the validity of a presidential veto or a condition
WIGBERTO E. TAÑADA and ALBERTO G. ROMULO, as imposed on an item in an appropriation bill. Where the veto is
Members of the Philippine Senate and as taxpayers, and claimed to have been made without or in excess of the authority
FREEDOM FROM DEBT COALITION, petitioners, vs. HON. vested on the President by the Constitution, the issue of an
TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR., in his capacity as Executive impermissible intrusion of the Executive into the domain of the
Secretary, HON. SALVADOR ENRIQUEZ, JR., in his Legislature arises (Notes: Congressional Standing To Challenge
capacity as Secretary of the Department of Budget and Executive Action, 122 University of Pennsylvania Law Review
Management, HON. CARIDAD VALDEHUESA, in her
1366 [1974]). To the extent the powers of Congress are impaired, so implemented by the President. Under Article XLI of the GAA of
is the power of each member thereof, since his office confers a right 1994, the President must perforce examine whether the proposals
to participate in the exercise of the powers of that institution submitted by the members of Congress fall within the specific
(Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 [1939]; Holtzman v. Schlesinger, items of expenditures for which the Fund was set up, and if
484 F. 2d 1307 [1973]). An act of the Executive which injures the qualified, he next determines whether they are in line with other
institution of Congress causes a derivative but nonetheless projects planned for the locality. Thereafter, if the proposed
substantial injury, which can be questioned by a member of projects qualify for funding under the Fund, it is the President
Congress (Kennedy v. Jones, 412 F. Supp. 353 [1976]). In such a who shall implement them. In short, the proposals and
case, any member of Congress can have a resort to the courts. identifications made by the members of Congress are merely
recommendatory.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The procedure of proposing and
508
identifying by members of Congress of particular projects or
activities under the General Appropriations Act of 1994 is
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED imaginative as it is innovative.—The procedure of proposing and
identifying by members of Congress of particular projects or
Philippine Constitution Association vs. Enriquez activities under Article XLI of the
525
Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses
02 Travelling Expenses 139,611
VOL. 235, AUGUST 19, 1994 525
03 Communication Services 22,514
Philippine Constitution Association vs. Enriquez 04 Repair and Maintenance of Government 5,116
Facilities
Expenses 9,360
05 Repair and Maintenance of Government 1,863
23 Advertising and Publication Vehicles
24 Fidelity Bonds and Insurance Premiums 1,325 06 Transportation Services 178
29 Other Services 89,778 07 Supplies and Materials 55,248
Total Maintenance and Other Operating 200,415
10 Grants/Subsidies/Contributions 940
Expenditures
14 Water/Illumination and Power 14,458
Total Current Operating Expenditures 464,447
15 Social Security Benefits and Other Claims 325
(GAA of 1994, pp. 3-4)
17 Training and Seminars Expenses 7,236
Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in
18 Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses 14,474
the general appropriations law for their respective offices from
20 Anti-Insurgency/Contingency Emergency 9,400 savings in other items of their respective appropriations.”
Expenses
The proviso of said Article of the Constitution grants the
23 Advertising and Publication Expenses 242
President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
24 Fidelity Bonds and Insurance Premiums 1,420 Representatives the power to augment items in an
29 Other Services 284,209 appropriation act for their respective offices from savings
Total Maintenance and Other Operating 557,234 in other items of their appropriations, whenever there is a
Expenses law authorizing such augmentation.
The special provision on realignment of the operating
Total Current Operating Expenditures 1,165,297 expenses of members of Congress is authorized by Section
(GAA of 1994, pp. 11-12) 16 of the General Provisions of the GAA of 1994, which
provides:
The Special Provision Applicable to the Congress of the
“Expenditure Components. Except by act of the Congress of the
Philippines provides:
Philippines, no change or modification shall be made in the
“4. Realignment of Allocation for Operational Expenses. A member expenditure items authorized in this Act and other appropriation
of Congress may realign his allocation for operational expenses to laws unless in cases of augmentations from savings in
any other expense category provided the total of said allocation is appropriations as authorized under Section 25(5) of Article VI of
not exceeded” (GAA of 1994, p. 14). the Constitution” (GAA of 1994, p. 1273).
The appropriation for operating expenditures for each Petitioners argue that the Senate President and the
House is further divided into expenditures for salaries, Speaker of the House of Representatives, but not the
personal services, individual members of Congress are the ones authorized to
realign the savings as appropriated.
527
528
532
VOL. 235, AUGUST 19, 1994 531
Philippine Constitution Association vs. Enriquez
532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Petitioners claim that the President cannot veto the Special Philippine Constitution Association vs. Enriquez
Provision on the appropriation for debt service without
vetoing the entire amount of P86,323,438.00 for said The restrictive interpretation urged by petitioners that the
purpose (Rollo, G.R. No. 113105, pp. 93-98; Rollo, G.R. No. President may not veto a provision without vetoing the entire bill
113174, pp. 16-18). The Solicitor General counterposed that not only disregards the basic principle that a distinct and
the Special Provision did not relate to the item of severable part of a bill may be the subject of a separate veto but
appropriation for debt service and could therefore be the 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 Article VI on the Legislative Department rather than in
limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it relates (1987 Article VII on the Executive Department in the
Constitution, Article VI, Section 25 [2]). In other words, in the true Constitution. There is, therefore, sound basis to indulge in
sense of the term, a provision in an Appropriations Bill is limited in its the presumption of validity of a veto. The burden shifts on
operation to some particular appropriation to which it relates, and those questioning the validity thereof to show that its use
does not relate to the entire bill.” is a violation of the Constitution.
Under his general veto power, the President has to veto
The Court went one step further and ruled that even
the entire bill, not merely parts thereof (1987 Constitution,
assuming arguendo that “provisions” are beyond the
Art. VI, Sec. 27[1]). The exception to the general veto power
executive power to veto, and Section 55 (FY '89) and
is the power given to the President to veto any particular
Section 16 (FY '90) were not “provisions” in the budgetary
item or items in a general appropriations bill (1987
sense of the term, they are “inappropriate provisions” that
Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 27[2]). In so doing, the President
should be treated as “items” for the purpose of the
must veto the entire item.
President’s veto power.
A general appropriations bill is a special type of
The Court, citing Henry v. Edwards, La., 346 So. 2d 153 legislation, whose content is limited to specified sums of
(1977), said that Congress cannot include in a general money dedicated to a specific purpose or a separate fiscal
appro-priations bill matters that should be more properly unit (Beckman, The Item Veto Power of the Executive, 31
enacted in separate legislation, and if it does that, the Temple Law Quarterly 27 [1957]).
inappropriate provisions inserted by it must be treated as The item veto was first introduced by the Organic Act of
“item,” which can be vetoed by the President in the exercise the Philippines passed by the U.S. Congress on August 29,
of his item-veto power. 1916. The concept was adopted from some State
It is readily apparent that the Special Provision applicable Constitutions.
to the appropriation for debt service insofar as it refers to Cognizant of the legislative practice of inserting
funds in excess of the amount appropriated in the bill, is an provisions, including conditions, restrictions and
“inappropriate” provision referring to funds other than the limitations, to items in appropriations bills, the
P86,323,438,000.00 appropriated in the General Constitutional Convention added the following sentence to
Appropriations Act of 1991. Section 20(2), Article VI of the 1935 Constitution:
Likewise the vetoed provision is clearly an attempt to
repeal Section 31 of P.D. No. 1177 (Foreign Borrowing Act) “x x x When a provision of an appropriation bill affects one or
and E.O. No. 292, and to reverse the debt payment policy. more items of the same, the President cannot veto the provision
As held by the Court in Gonzales, the repeal of these laws without at the same time vetoing the particular item or items to
should be done in a separate law, not in the appropriations which it relates x x x.”
law.
The Court will indulge every intendment in favor of the In short, under the 1935 Constitution, the President was
constitutionality of a veto, the same as it will presume the empowered to veto separately not only items in an
constitutionality of an act of Congress (Texas Co. v. State, appropriations bill but also “provisions.”
254 P. 1060; 31 Ariz., 485, 53 A.L.R. 258 [1927]). While the 1987 Constitution did not retain the
The veto power, while exercisable by the President, is aforementioned sentence added to Section 11(2) of Article
actually a part of the legislative process (Memorandum of VI of the 1935 Constitution, it included the following
Justice Irene Cortes as Amicus Curiae, pp. 3-7). That is why provision:
it is found in “No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general
533 appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to some particular
appropriation therein. Any such provision or enactment shall be
limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it relates”
VOL. 235, AUGUST 19, 1994 533 (Art. VI, Sec.
Philippine Constitution Association vs. Enriquez
534
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED permitted to impair the constitutional responsibilities and
Philippine Constitution Association vs. Enriquez functions of a co-equal branch of government
25[2]). 535
537
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Cooperation Fund (OECF Loan No. PH-C17-199). The same is a VOL. 235, AUGUST 19, 1994 541
covenant under the World Bank (IBRD) Loan for the Highway Philippine Constitution Association vs. Enriquez
Management Project (IBRD Loan No. PH-3430) obtained in 1992.
In the light of the foregoing and considering the policy of the Law (R.A. No. 6675). The vetoed provision reads:
government to encourage and maximize private sector participation
in the regular repair and maintenance of infrastructure facilities, I am “12. Purchase of Medicines. The purchase of medicines by all
directly vetoing the underlined second paragraph of Special Armed Forces of the Philippines units, hospitals and clinics shall
Provision No. 2 of the Department of Public Works and Highways” strictly comply with the formulary embodied in the National Drug
Policy of the Department of Health” (GAA of 1994, p. 748).
(Veto Message, p. 11).
The second paragraph of Special Provision No. 2 brings to According to the President, while it is desirable to subject
fore the divergence in policy of Congress and the President. the purchase of medicines to a standard formulary, “it is
While Congress expressly laid down the condition that only believed more prudent to provide for a transition period for
30% of the total appropriation for road maintenance should its adoption and smooth implementation in the Armed
be contracted out, the President, on the basis of a Forces of the Philippines” (Veto Message, p. 12).
comprehensive study, believed that contracting out road The Special Provision which requires that all purchases
maintenance projects at an option of 70% would be more of medicines by the AFP should strictly comply with the
efficient, economical and practical. formulary embodied in the National Drug Policy of the
The Special Provision in question is not an inappropriate Department of Health is an “appropriate” provision. It is a
provision which can be the subject of a veto. It is not alien to mere advertence by Congress to the fact that there is an
the appropriation for road maintenance, and on the other existing law, the Generics Act of 1988, that requires “the
hand, it specifies how the said item shall be expended— extensive use of drugs with generic names through a
70% by administrative and 30% by contract. rational system of procurement and distribution.” The
The 1987 Constitution allows the addition by Congress of President believes that it is more prudent to provide for a
special provisions, conditions to items in an expenditure bill, transition period for the smooth implementation of the law
which cannot be vetoed separately from the items to in the case of purchases by the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, as implied by Section 11 (Education Drive) of
the law itself. This belief, however, cannot justify his veto of limitations related to the item on the AFP modernization
the provision on the purchase of medicines by the AFP. plan.
Being directly related to and inseparable from the The requirement in Special Provision No. 2 on the “Use
appropriation item on purchases of medicines by the AFP, of Fund” for the AFP modernization program that the
the special provision cannot be vetoed by the President President must submit all purchases of military equipment
without also vetoing the said item (Bolinao Electronics to Congress for its approval, is an exercise of the
Corporation v. Valencia, 11 SCRA 486 [1964]). “congressional or legislative veto.” By way of definition, a
congressional veto is a means whereby the legislature can
4. Veto of provision on prior approval of Congress for block or modify administrative action taken under a
purchase of military equipment. statute. It is a form of legislative control in the
implementation of particular executive actions. The form
In the appropriation for the modernization of the AFP, the may be either negative, that is requiring disapproval of the
President vetoed the underlined proviso of Special Provision executive action, or affirmative, requiring approval of the
No. 2 on the “Use of Fund,” which requires the prior executive action. This device represents a significant
approval of Congress for the release of the corresponding attempt by Congress to move from oversight of the
modernization funds, as well as the entire Special Provision executive to shared administration (Dixon, The
No. 3 on the “Specific Prohibition”: Congressional Veto and Separation of Powers: The
542
Executive on a Leash, 56 North Carolina Law Review, 423
[1978]).
A congressional veto is subject to serious questions
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED involving the principle of separation of powers.
Philippine Constitution Association vs. Enriquez 543
“2. Use of the Fund. Of the amount herein appropriated, priority shall
be given for the acquisition of AFP assets necessary for protecting VOL. 235, AUGUST 19, 1994 543
marine, mineral, forest and other resources within Philippine Philippine Constitution Association vs. Enriquez
territorial borders and its economic zone, detection, prevention or
deterrence of air or surface intrusions and to support diplomatic However the case at bench is not the proper occasion to
moves aimed at preserving national dignity, sovereignty and resolve the issues of the validity of the legislative veto as
patrimony: PROVIDED, That the said modernization fund shall not provided in Special Provisions Nos. 2 and 3 because the
be released until a Table of Organization and Equipment for FY issues at hand can be disposed of on other grounds. Any
1994-2000 is submitted to and approved by Congress. provision blocking an administrative action in
implementing a law or requiring legislative approval of
3. Specific Prohibition. The said Modernization Fund shall not be executive acts must be incorporated in a separate and
used for payment of six (6) additional S-211 Trainer planes, 18 SF- substantive bill. Therefore, being “inappropriate”
260 Trainer planes and 150 armored personnel carriers” (GAA of provisions, Special Provisions Nos. 2 and 3 were properly
1994, p. 747). vetoed.
As reason for the veto, the President stated that the said As commented by Justice Irene Cortes in her
condition and prohibition violate the Constitutional mandate memorandum as Amicus Curiae: “What Congress cannot do
directly by law it cannot do indirectly by attaching
of non-impairment of contractual obligations, and if allowed,
conditions to the exercise of that power (of the President as
“shall effectively alter the original intent of the AFP
Commander-in-Chief) through provisions in the
Modernization Fund to cover all military equipment deemed
appropriation law.”
necessary to modernize the Armed Forces of the
Furthermore, Special Provision No. 3, prohibiting the
Philippines” (Veto Message, p. 12).
use of the Modernization Fund for payment of the trainer
Petitioners claim that Special Provision No. 2 on the “Use
planes and armored personnel carriers, which have been
of Fund” and Special Provision No. 3 are conditions or contracted for by the AFP, is violative of the Constitutional
prohibition on the passage of laws that impair the
obligation of contracts (Art. III, Sec. 10), more so, contracts executive branch, such right must and can be exercised
entered into by the Government itself. The veto of said only by the President pursuant to a specific law.
special provision is therefore valid.
6. Condition on the deactivation of the CAFGU’s
5. Veto of provision on use of savings to augment AFP
pension funds. Congress appropriated compensation for the CAFGU’s,
including the payment of separation benefits but it added
In the appropriation for the AFP Pension and Gratuity Fund, the following Special Provision:
the President vetoed the new provision authorizing the Chief
“1. CAFGU Compensation and Separation Benefit. The
of Staff to use savings in the AFP to augment pension and
appropriation authorized herein shall be used for the
gratuity funds. The vetoed provision reads:
compensation of CAFGU’s including the payment of their
“2. Use of Savings. The Chief of Staff, AFP, is authorized, subject to separation benefit not exceeding one (1) year subsistence
the approval of the Secretary of National Defense, to use savings in allowance for the 11,000 members who will be deactivated in
the appropriations provided herein to augment the pension fund 1994. The Chief of Staff, AFP, shall, subject to the approval of the
being managed by the AFP Retirement and Separation Benefits Secretary of National Defense, promulgate policies and
System as provided under Sections 2(a) and 3 of P.D. No. 361” procedures for the payment of separation benefit” (GAA of 1994,
(GAA of 1994, p. 746). p. 740).
According to the President, the grant of retirement and The President declared in his Veto Message that the
separation benefits should be covered by direct implementation of this Special Provision to the item on the
appropriations specifically approved for the purpose CAFGU’s shall be subject to prior Presidential approval
pursuant to Section 29(1) of Article VI of the Constitution. pursuant to P.D. No. 1597 and R.A. No. 6758. He gave the
Moreover, he stated that the following reasons for imposing the condition:
544 545
authority to use savings is lodged in the officials enumerated “I am well cognizant of the laudable intention of Congress in
in Section 25(5) of Article VI of the Constitution (Veto proposing the amendment of Special Provision No. 1 of the
Message, pp. 7-8). CAFGU. However, it is premature at this point in time of our
Petitioners claim that the Special Provision on AFP peace process to earmark and declare through special provision
Pension and Gratuity Fund is a condition or limitation which the actual number of CAFGU members to be deactivated in CY
is so intertwined with the item of appropriation that it could 1994. I understand that the number to be deactivated would
not be separated therefrom. largely depend on the result or degree of success of the on-going
The Special Provision, which allows the Chief of Staff to peace initiatives which are not yet precisely determinable today. I
use savings to augment the pension fund for the AFP being have desisted, therefore, to directly veto said provisions because
managed by the AFP Retirement and Separation Benefits this would mean the loss of the entire special provision to the
System is violative of Sections 25(5) and 29(1) of the Article prejudice of its beneficient provisions. I therefore declare that the
VI of the Constitution. actual implementation of this special provision shall be subject to
Under Section 25(5), no law shall be passed authorizing prior Presidential approval pursuant to the provisions of P.D. No.
any transfer of appropriations, and under Section 29(1), no 1597 and R.A. No. 6758” (Veto Message, p. 13).
money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in
pursuance of an appropriation made by law. While Section Petitioners claim that the Congress has required the
25(5) allows as an exception the realignment of savings to deactivation of the CAFGU’s when it appropriated the
augment items in the general appropriations law for the money for payment of the separation pay of the members
thereof. The President, however, directed that the
deactivation should be done in accordance to his timetable, power drawn from the President’s role as Commander-in-
taking into consideration the peace and order situation in the Chief. Third is the Faithful Execution Clause which
affected localities. ironically is the same provision invoked by petitioners
Petitioners complain that the directive of the President herein.
was tantamount to an administrative embargo of the The proponents insist that a faithful execution of the
congressional will to implement the Constitution’s command laws requires that the President desist from implementing
to dissolve the CAFGU’s (Rollo, G.R. No. 113174, p. 14; the law if doing so would prejudice public interest. An
G.R. No. 113888, pp. 9, 14-16). They argue that the example given is when through efficient and prudent
President cannot impair or withhold expenditures authorized management of a project, substantial savings are made. In
and appropriated by Congress when neither the such a case, it is sheer folly to expect the President to
Appropriations Act nor other legislation authorize such spend the entire amount budgeted in the law (Notes:
impounding (Rollo, G.R. No. 113888, pp. 15-16). Presidential Impoundment: Constitutional Theories and
The Solicitor General contends that it is the President, as Political Realities, 61 Georgetown Law Journal 1295
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the [1973]; Notes: Protecting the Fisc: Executive Impoundment
Philippines, who should determine when the services of the and Congressional Power, 82 Yale Law Journal 1686
CAFGU’s are no longer needed (Rollo, G.R. No. 113888, [1973]).
pp. 92-95). We do not find anything in the language used in the
This is the first case before this Court where the power of challenged Special Provision that would imply that
the President to impound is put in issue. Impoundment Congress intended to deny to the President the right to
refers to a refusal by the President, for whatever reason, to defer or reduce the spending, much less to deactivate
spend funds made available by Congress. It is the failure to 11,000 CAFGU members all at once in 1994. But even if
spend or obligate budget authority of any type (Notes: such is the intention, the appropriation law is not the
Impoundment of Funds, 86 Harvard Law Review 1505 proper vehicle for such purpose. Such intention must be
[1973]). embodied and manifested in another law considering that
Those who deny to the President the power to impound it abrades the powers of the Commander-in-Chief and there
argue that once Congress has set aside the fund for a are existing laws on the creation of the CAFGU’s to be
specific purpose in an appropriations act, it becomes amended. Again we state: a provision in an appropriations
mandatory on the part of the act cannot be used to repeal or amend other laws, in this
case, P.D. No. 1597 and R.A. No. 6758.
546
547
Philippine Constitution Association vs. Enriquez VOL. 235, AUGUST 19, 1994 547
Philippine Constitution Association vs. Enriquez
President to implement the project and to spend the money
appropriated therefor. The President has no discretion on 7. Conditions on the appropriation for the Supreme
the matter, for the Constitution imposes on him the duty to Court, etc.
faithfully execute the laws.
In refusing or deferring the implementation of an (a) In the appropriations for the Supreme Court,
appropriation item, the President in effect exercises a veto Ombudsman, COA, and CHR, the Congress added the
power that is not expressly granted by the Constitution. As a following provisions:
matter of fact, the Constitution does not say anything about The Judiciary
impounding. The source of the Executive authority must be xxx xxx xxx
found elsewhere. Special Provisions
Proponents of impoundment have invoked at least three
“1. Augmentation of any Item in the Court’s Appropriations. Any
principal sources of the authority of the President. Foremost
savings in the appropriations for the Supreme Court and the
is the authority to impound given to him either expressly or
Lower Courts may be utilized by the Chief Justice of the Supreme
impliedly by Congress. Second is the executive
Court to augment any item of the Court’s appropriations for (a) purchase of books, journals, periodicals and equipment; (d)
printing of decisions and publication of ‘Philippine Reports’; (b) payment of commutable representation and transportation
commutable terminal leaves of Justices and other personnel of the allowances of officials and employees who by reason of their
Supreme Court and payment of adjusted pension rates to retired positions are entitled thereto and fringe benefits as may be
Justices entitled thereto pursuant to Administrative Matter No. 91-8- authorized specifically by law for officials and personnel of OMB
225-C.A.; (c) repair, maintenance, improvement and other operating pursuant to Section 8 of Article IX-B of the Constitution; and (e)
expenses of the courts’ libraries, including purchase of books and for other official purposes subject to accounting and auditing rules
periodicals; (d) purchase, maintenance and improvement of printing and regulations” (GAA of 1994, p. 1174; Italics supplied).
equipment; (e) necessary expenses for the employment of temporary xxx xxx xxx
employees, contractual and casual employees, for judicial Commission on Human Rights
administration; (f) maintenance and improvement of the Court’s xxx xxx xxx
Electronic Data Processing System; “1. Use of Savings. The Chairman of the Commission on
(g) extraordinary expenses of the Chief Justice, attendance in Human Rights (CHR) is hereby authorized, subject to appropriate
international conferences and conduct of training programs; (h) accounting and auditing rules and regulations, to augment any
commutable trans-portation and representation allowances and item of appropriation in the office of the CHR from savings in
fringe benefits for Justices, Clerks of Court, Court Administrator, other items of appropriations actually released, for: (a) printing
Chiefs of Offices and other Court personnel in accordance with the and/or publication of decisions, resolutions, training materials
rates prescribed by law; and (i) compensation of attorney-de-officio: and educational publications; (b) repair, maintenance and
PROVIDED, That as mandated by LOI No. 489 any increase in improvement of Commission’s central and regional facilities; (c)
salary and allowances shall be subject to the usual procedures and purchase of books, journals, periodicals and equipment, (d)
policies as provided for under P.D. No. 985 and other pertinent laws” payment of commutable representation and transportation allow-
(GAA of 1994, p. 1128; Italics supplied). ances of officials and employees who by reason of their positions
xxx xxx xxx are entitled thereto and fringe benefits, as may be authorized by
Commission on Audit law for officials and personnel of CHR, subject to accounting and
xxx xxx xxx auditing rules and regulations” (GAA of 1994, p. 1178; Italics
“5. Use of Savings. The Chairman of the Commission on Audit is supplied).
hereby authorized, subject to appropriate accounting and auditing
In his Veto Message, the President expressed his approval
rules and regulations, to use savings for the payment of fringe
benefits as may be authorized by law for officials and personnel of of the conditions included in the GAA of 1994. He noted
the Commission” (GAA of 1994, p. 1161; Italics supplied). that:
“The said condition is consistent with the Constitutional
xxx xxx xxx
injunction prescribed under Section 8, Article IX-B of the
Office of the Ombudsman
Constitution which states that ‘no elective or appointive public
548
officer or employee shall receive additional, double, or indirect
compensation unless specifically authorized by law.’ I am,
therefore, confident that the heads of the said offices shall
548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
maintain fidelity to the law and faithfully adhere to the well-
Philippine Constitution Association vs. Enriquez established principle on compensation standardization (Veto
Message, p. 10).
xxx xxx xxx
“6. Augmentation of Items in the Appropriation of the Office of the 549
Ombudsman. The Ombudsman is hereby authorized, subject to
appropriate accounting and auditing rules and regulations to
VOL. 235, AUGUST 19, 1994 549
augment items of appropriation in the Office of the Ombudsman from
Philippine Constitution Association vs. Enriquez
savings in other items of appropriation actually released, for:
(a) printing and/or publication of decisions, resolutions, training and
information materials; (b) repair, maintenance and improvement of Petitioners claim that the conditions imposed by the
OMB Central and Area/Sectoral facilities; (c) President violated the independence and fiscal autonomy of
the Supreme Court, the Ombudsman, the COA and the being already a vested right to the agencies concerned which
CHR. should not be jeopardized through the Veto Message. There is,
In the first place, the conditions questioned by petitioners however, imperative need to rationalize their implementation,
were placed in the GAB by Congress itself, not by the applicability and operation. Thus, in order to substantiate the
President. The Veto Message merely highlighted the purpose and intention of said provisions, I hereby declare that the
Constitutional mandate that additional or indirect operationalization of the following provisions during budget
compensation can only be given pursuant to law. implementation shall be subject to the guidelines to be issued by
In the second place, such statements are mere the President pursuant to Section 35, Chapter 5, Book VI of E.O.
reminders that the disbursements of appropriations must be No. 292 and Sections 65 and 66 of P.D. No. 1445 in relation to
made in accordance with law. Such statements may, at Sections 2 and 3 of the General Provisions of this Act” (Veto
worse, be treated as superfluities. Message, p. 6; Italics supplied).
(b) In the appropriation for the COA, the President
(c) In the appropriation for the DPWH, the President
imposed the condition that the implementation of the budget
imposed the condition that in the implementation of DPWH
of the COA be subject to “the guidelines to be issued by the
projects, the administrative and engineering overhead of 5%
President.” The provisions subject to said condition reads:
and 3% “shall be subject to the necessary administrative
guidelines to be formulated by the Executive pursuant to
xxx xxx xxx existing laws.” The condition was imposed because the
“3. Revolving Fund. The income of the Commission on Audit provision “needs further study” according to the President.
derived from sources authorized by the Government Auditing Code
of the Philippines (P.D. No. 1445) not exceeding Ten Million Pesos The following provision was made subject to said
(P10,000,000) shall be constituted into a revolving fund which shall condition:
be used for maintenance, operating and other incidental expenses to
“9. Engineering and Administrative Overhead. Not more than five
enhance audit services and audit-related activities. The fund shall be
deposited in an authorized government depository ban, and percent (5%) of the amount for infrastructure project released by
the Department of Budget and Management shall be deducted by
withdrawals therefrom shall be made in accordance with the
procedure prescribed by law and implementing rules and DPWH for administrative overhead, detailed engineering and con-
struction supervision, testing and quality control, and the like,
regulations: PROVIDED, That any interests earned on such deposit
thus insuring that at least ninety-five percent (95%) of the
shall be remitted at the end of each quarter to the National Treasury
released fund is available for direct implementation of the project.
and shall accrue to the General Fund: PROVIDED FURTHER, That
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That for school buildings, health
the Commission on Audit shall submit to the Department of Budget
centers, day-care centers and barangay halls, the deductible
and Management a quarterly report of income and expenditures of
amount shall not exceed three percent (3%). Violation of, or non-
said revolving fund” (GAA of 1994, pp. 1160-1161).
compliance with, this provision shall subject the government
official or employee concerned to administrative, civil and/or
The President cited the “imperative need to rationalize” the criminal sanction under Sections 43 and 80, Book VI of E.O. No.
implementation, applicability and operation of use of income 292" (GAA of 1994, p. 786).
and revolving funds. The Veto Message stated: (d) In the appropriation for the National Housing Authority
“x x x I have observed that there are old and long existing special (NHA), the President imposed the condition that allocations
provisions authorizing the use of income and the creation of for specific projects shall be released and disbursed “in
revolving funds. As a rule, such authorizations should be accordance with the housing program of the government,
discouraged. However, I take it that these authorizations have subject to prior Executive approval.”
legal/statutory basis aside from The provision subject to the said condition reads:
550 551
550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 235, AUGUST 19, 1994 551
Philippine Constitution Association vs. Enriquez Philippine Constitution Association vs. Enriquez
552
“3. Allocations for Specified Projects. The following allocations for the
specified projects shall be set aside for corollary works and used
exclusively for the repair, rehabilitation and construction of buildings, 552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
roads, pathwalks, drainage, waterworks systems, facilities and Philippine Constitution Association vs. Enriquez
amenities in the area: PROVIDED, That any road to be constructed
or rehabilitated shall conform with the specifications and standards The conditions objected to by petitioners are mere
set by the Department of Public Works and Highways for such kind reminders that the implementation of the items on which
of road: PROVIDED, FURTHER, That savings that may be available the said conditions were imposed, should be done in
in the future shall be used for road repair, rehabilitation and accordance with existing laws, regulations or policies. They
construction: did not add anything to what was already in place at the
(1) Maharlika Village Road—Not less than P5,000,000 time of the approval of the GAA of 1994.
(2) Tenement Housing Project (Taguig)—Not less than
There is less basis to complain when the President said
that the expenditures shall be subject to guidelines he will
P3,000,000
issue. Until the guidelines are issued, it cannot be
(3) Bagong Lipunan Condominium Project (Taguig)—Not less
determined whether they are proper or inappropriate. The
than P2,000,000 issuance of administrative guidelines on the use of public
funds authorized by Congress is simply an exercise by the
4. Allocation of Funds. Out of the amount appropriated for the
President of his constitutional duty to see that the laws are
implementation of various projects in resettlement areas, Seven
faithfully executed (1987 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 17;
Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P7,500,000) shall be
Planas v. Gil, 67 Phil. 62 [1939]). Under the Faithful
allocated to the Dasmarinas Bagong Bayan resettlement area,
Execution Clause, the President has the power to take
Eighteen Million Pesos (P18,000,000) to the Carmona Relocation
“necessary and proper steps” to carry into execution the
Center Area (Gen. Mariano Alvarez) and Three Million Pesos
law (Schwartz, On Constitutional Law, p. 147 [1977]).
(P3,000,000) to the Bulihan Sites and Services, all of which will be
These steps are the ones to be embodied in the guidelines.
for the cementing of roads in accordance with DPWH standards.
5. Allocation for Sapang Palay. An allocation of Eight Million
Pesos (P8,000,000) shall be set aside for the asphalting of seven IV
(7) kilometer main road of Sapang Palay, San Jose Del Monte,
Petitioners chose to avail of the special civil actions but
Bulacan” (GAA of 1994, p. 1216).
those remedies can be used only when respondents have
The President imposed the conditions: (a) that the acted “without or in excess” of jurisdiction, or “with grave
“operationalization” of the special provision on revolving abuse of discretion,” (Revised Rules of Court, Rule 65,
fund of the COA “shall be subject to guidelines to be issued Section 2). How can we begrudge the President for vetoing
by the President pursuant to Section 35, Chapter 5, Book VI the Special Provision on the appropria-tion for debt
of E.O. No. 292 and Sections 65 and 66 of P.D. No. 1445 in payment when he merely followed our decision in
relation to Sections 2 and 3 of the General Provisions of this Gonzales? How can we say that Congress has abused its
Act” (Rollo, G.R. No. 113174, pp. 5, 7-8); (b) that the discretion when it appropriated a bigger sum for debt
implementation of Special Provision No. 9 of the DPWH on payment than the amount appropriated for education,
the mandatory retention of 5% and 3% of the amounts when it merely followed our dictum in Guingona?
released by said Department “be subject to the necessary Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, provides:
administrative guidelines to be formulated by the Executive
“Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the
pursuant to existing law” (Rollo, G.R. No. 113888; pp. 10,
constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the
14-16); and (c) that the appropriations authorized for the
Philippines.”
NHA can be released only “in accordance with the housing
program of the government subject to prior Executive The Court’s interpretation of the law is part of that law as
approval” (Rollo, G.R. No. 113888, pp. 10-11; 14-16). of the date of its enactment since the court’s interpretation
merely establishes the contemporary legislative intent that
the construed law purports to carry into effect (People v.
Licera, 65 SCRA 270 [1975]). Decisions of the Supreme Sec. 27(2), Art. VI of the Constitution states:
Court assume the same
554
553