Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works GR No.

L-10405,December 29,1960

FACTS:
PET Governor Wenceslao Pascual of Rizal instituted this action for declaratory relief, with injunction,
praying that RA No. 920, which appropriates P85,000 for the construction, reconstruction,
repair, extension and improvement of Pasig feeder road terminal be declared null
and void.
 PET claims that the terminal do not connect any government property or any important premises
to the main highway, and are nothing but for the projected and planned subdivision
roads within Antonio Subdivision- which is owned by private respondent Senator Jose
Zulueta.
 RESP: There is public purpose because people living in the subdivision will directly be benefitted
from the construction of the roads, and the government also gains from the donation of the land
supposed to be occupied by the streets, made by its owner to the government.

Respondent offered to donate the said feeder roads to the municipality of Pasig
and the offer was accepted by the council, subject to a condition that
the donor would submit plan of the roads and an agreement to change the names
of 2 streets.
Petitioner prayed for RA 920 be declared null and void and the alleged deed of
donation be declared unconstitutional.
 The lower court dismissed the petition upon the ground that petitioner may not contest the legality
because the same does not affect him directly. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

Does petitioner have legal standing to sue? YES

SC: The validity of a statute may be contested only by one who will sustain a direct injury in consequence
of its enforcement. Yet, laws providing the disbursement of public funds may also be nullified at the
instance of taxpayers.

 General rule is that not only persons individually affected, but also taxpayers, have sufficient
interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of moneys raised by taxation and may therefore
question the constitutionality of statutes requiring expenditure of public moneys.

W/N incidental gains by the public be considered "public purpose" for the purpose of justifying an expenditure
of the government? NO

SC: It is a general rule that the legislature is without power to appropriate public revenue for anything
but a public purpose.
  The taxing power must be exercised for public purposes only and the money
raised by taxation can be expended only for public purposes and not for
the advantage of private individuals.
 It is the essential character of the direct object of the expenditure which must determine its validity as
justifying a tax, and not the magnitude of the interest to be affected nor the degree to which the general
advantage of the community, and thus the public welfare, may be ultimately benefited by their
promotion.
 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.
The test of the constitutionality of a statute requiring the use of public funds is whether the statute is
designed to promote the public interest, as opposed to the furtherance of the advantage of individuals,
although each advantage to individuals might incidentally serve the public.

ITC, the legality of the appropriation of the feeder roads depend upon whether
the said roads were public or private property when the bill was passed.
 When the law took effect, the land was owned by Zulueta. The donation
did not cure the nullity of the appropriation; therefore a judicial
nullification of a said donation need not precede the declaration of
unconstitutionality of RA 920