23. PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION vs. HON.

SALVADOR ENRIQUEZ
G.R. No. 113105 August 19, 1994

FACTS: House Bill No. 10900, the GAB of 1994, was passed and approved by both houses of Congress.
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. Pursuant
to the procedure on the passage and enactment of bills as prescribed by the Constitution, Congress
presented the said bill to the President for consideration and approval. President signed the bill into law,
and declared the same to have become RA NO. 7663 GAA of 1994. President delivered his Presidential
Veto Message, specifying the provisions of the bill he vetoed and on which he imposed certain
conditions, as follows:
1. Provision on Debt Ceiling, on the ground that this debt reduction scheme cannot be validly done
through the 1994 GAA.
2. Special provisions which authorize the use of income and the creation, operation and maintenance of
revolving funds in the appropriation for State Universities and Colleges (SUCs),
3. Provision on 70% (administrative)/30% (contract) ratio for road maintenance.
4. Special provision on the purchase by the AFP of medicines in compliance with the Generics Drugs
Law (R.A. No. 6675).
5. The President vetoed the underlined proviso in the appropriation for the modernization of the AFP of
the Special Provision No. 2 on the Use of Fund, which requires the prior approval of the Congress for
the release of the corresponding modernization funds.
6. Provision authorizing Chief of Staff to use savings in the AFP to augment pension and gratuity funds.
7. Conditions on the appropriation for the Supreme Court, Ombudsman, COA, and CHR, the Congress

ISSUES:
1. WON petitioners have locus standi
2. WON the conditions imposed by the President in the items of the GAA of 1994 are constitutional
3. WON the veto of the special provision in the appropriation for debt service and the automatic
appropriation of funds therefore is constitutional.

HELD:
Locus Standi
A member of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives has the legal standing to question the
validity of a presidential veto or a condition imposed on an item in an appropriation bill. To the extent the
powers of Congress are impaired, so is the power of each member thereof, since his office confers a right
to participate in the exercise of the powers of that institution.

Veto of the Provisions
The veto power, while exercisable by the President, is actually a part of the legislative process. There is,
therefore, sound basis to indulge in the presumption of validity of a veto. The burden shifts on those
questioning the validity thereof to show that its use is a violation of the Constitution. The vetoed
provision on the debt servicing is clearly an attempt to repeal Section 31 of P.D. No. 1177 (Foreign
Borrowing Act) and E.O. No. 292, and to reverse the debt payment policy. As held by the court in
Gonzales, the repeal of these laws should be done in a separate law, not in the appropriations law.
In the veto of the provision relating to SUCs, there was no undue discrimination when the President
vetoed said special provisions while allowing similar provisions in other government agencies. If some
government agencies were allowed to use their income and maintain a revolving fund for that purpose, it
is because these agencies have been enjoying such privilege before by virtue of the special laws
authorizing such practices as exceptions to the one-fund policy. The veto of the second paragraph of
Special Provision No. 2 of the item for the DPWH is unconstitutional. The Special Provision in question
is not an inappropriate provision which can be the subject of a veto. It is not alien to the appropriation for
road maintenance, and on the other hand, it specifies how the said item shall be expended 70% by
administrative and 30% by contract.

Special Provision in the Appropriation for Debt Service
The appropriation law is not the proper vehicle for such purpose. Such intention must be embodied and
manifested in another law considering that it abrades the powers of the Commander-in-Chief and there
are existing laws on the creation of the CAFGUs to be amended. On the conditions imposed by the
President on certain provisions relating to appropriations to the Supreme Court, constitutional
commissions, the NHA and the DPWH, there is less basis to complain when the President said that the
expenditures shall be subject to guidelines he will issue. Until the guidelines are issued, it cannot be
determined whether they are proper or inappropriate. Under the Faithful Execution Clause, the President
has the power to take necessary and proper steps to carry into execution the law. These steps are the
ones to be embodied in the guidelines.

24 GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA vs. HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
PAQUITO N. OCHOA
G.R. No. 2085666 November 19, 2013

25 Maria Carolina P. Araullo, et al. v. Benigno Simeon C. Aquino, III
G.R. No. 209287 July 1, 2014

26 STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (Philippine Branch) vs. SENATE COMMITTEE ON BANKS
G.R. No. 167173 December 27, 2007

27 ROMULO L. NERI vs. SENATE COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
AND INVESTIGATIONS, et al.
G.R. No. 180643 March 25, 2008

28 VIRGILIO O. GARCILLANO vs. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEES ON
PUBLIC INFORMATION, et al
G.R. No. 170338 December 23, 2008



29 SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EDUARDO R. ERMITA
G.R. No. 169777 April 20, 2006