FIRST ISSUE

WHETHER OR NOT THE TRANSFER OR REALIGNMENT OF EMPLOYEES FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SP TO
THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MAYOR AS INCORPORATED IN THE GENERAL APPRORIATION BILL VALID?

- NO

LEGAL BASIS

A. SECTION 25 (1) OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION

- No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriations bill unless it

relates specifically to some particular appropriations therein. Any such provision or
enactment shall be limited in its operaion to the appropriation to which it relates.

DISCUSSION

- Sec 25(2) prohibits RIDERS. A RIDER is a provision inserted in the general appropriations bill
which does not relate to any particular appropriation therein. It has no force and effect.

RATIONALE OF THE LAW

- It aims to prevent the general appropriations bill from being used as a means to have
controversial matters enacted into law. Example : A provision in such bill “authorizing government
officers and employees to do private work” is rider because it has absolutely nothing to do with
appropriation.

B. SECTION 26(1) OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION

- Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace ONLY ONE SUBJECT which shall be
expressed in the title thereof.

RATIONALE OF THE LAW:

- The requirement in Section 26(1) prevents what s known as hodge-podge or log-rolling

legislation. It refers to a bill containing several UNRELATED MATTERS combined together for the
purpose of securing the support of members of Congress separately interested in the different subjects
of the bill. If these subjects were to be presented in separate bills, the likelihood is that none of them
would obtain a majority vote.