1.

Inappropriate provisions can be considered

"items" which the President can veto.
Inappropraite meaning a non-appropriation
provision included in the appropriation bill.
2. Executive Impoundment - refusal by the
President, for whatever reason, to spend funds
made available by Congress. It is the failure to
spend or obligate budget authority of any time.
The proponents insist that a faithful execution of
the laws resquires that the President desist from
implementing the law if doing so would prejudice
public interest.
3. Sec 27(1) refers to the general veto power of
the president. ENTIRE BILL. Sec 27(2) refers to
ITEM VETO power or LINE VETO allowed only on
APPROPRIATION, REVENUE or TARRIF BILL. The
power given to the President to disapprove any
item in an Appropriations Bill does not grant the
authority to veto a part of an item and to approve
the remaining portion of the sam e item.
4. The terms ITEM and PROVISION are Different.
-> Item: particulars, details, distict, and several
parts of the bill. It is the indivisible sum of money
allocated to a single purpose. An item which in
itself is a SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION of money,
not some general provision of law, which just
happens to be put in an appropriation bill.
5. Claim of the petitioners that the President may
not veto a provision without vetoing the entire bill
not only disregards the basic principle that a
distinct and several part of a bill may be subject
of a separate veto, but also overlooks the
Constitutional mandate that any provision in the
general appropriations bill shall relate
specifically to some provision particular therein,
and that such any provision shall be limited in its
operation to the appropriation to which it relates.
6. In short, a PROVISION in an appropriation bill is
limited in its operation to some particular
appropriation, and DOES NOT RELATE TO THE
ENTIRE BILL. The President may veto provisions.
7. Even assuming that provision are beyond veto
powers, Sec 55 may still be vetoed following the
DOCTRINE OF INAPPROPRIATE PROVISIONS
-> a provision that odes to relate to any particular
appropriation
-> Disapproved or reduced items are nowhere to
be found on the face of the bill
-> The vetoed functions are more an expression of
Congressional policy regarding augmentation
powers rather than a true budgetary
appropriation.
8. Sec 55 is thus an inappropriate provision that
should be treated as items for purposes of veto
powers.
9. It cannot be denied that Legislators has the
power to provide qualifications and conditions in
Appropriation Bills as to limit how the money shall
be spent. Also, it cannot be denied that the
Executive is not allowed to veto a condition or
qualification but allowing the appropriation itself
to stand. However, for these to apply, the
restrictions should be in the real sense of the
term, not some matters which are more properly
deat with in a separate legislation. Restrictions or
Conditions must exhibit a connection between
money is a budgetary sense in the schedule of
expenditures
10. Thus the test is one of appropriateness