Atitiw V. Zamora G.R. No. 143374 En Banc, J. Tinga Case Digest by: Gino Angelo P.

Yanga Facts: The ratification of the 1987 Constitution ordains the creation of autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the Cordilleras mandating the Congress to enact organic acts pursuant to section 18 of article X of the Constitution. Thus, by virtue of the residual powers of President Cory Aquino she promulgated E.O 220 creating CAR. Then the congress enacted R.A 6766, an act providing for organic act for the cordillera autonomous region, a plebiscite was cast but was not approve by the people. The court declared that E.O 220 to be still in force and effect until properly repealed or amended. Later on February 15, 2000, President Estrada signed the General Appropriations Act of 2000 (GAA 2000) which includes the assailed special provisions, then issued an E.O 270 to extend the implementation of the winding up of operations of the CAR and extended it by virtue of E.O 328. The petitioners seek the declaration of nullity of paragraph 1 of the special provisions of RA 870 (GAA 2000) directing that the appropriation for the CAR shall be spent to wind up its activities and pay the separation and retirement benefits of all the affected members and employees. Issue: 1. Whether the assailed special provisions in RA 8760 is a rider and as such is unconstitutional. 2. Whether the Philippine Government, through Congress, can unilaterally amend/repeal EO 220. 3. Whether the Republic should be ordered to honor its commitments as spelled out in EO.220 Ruling: In relation to article VI section 25(2) and section 26 the court said that xxx an appropriations bill covers a broader range of subject matter and therefore includes more details compared to an ordinary bill. The title of an appropriations bill cannot be any broader as it is since it is not feasible to come out with a title that embraces all the details included in an appropriations bill xxx. The assailed paragraph 1 of the RA8760 does not constitute a rider; it follows the standard that a provision in an appropriations bill must relate specifically to some particular appropriations. On the other hand, the contention that Congress cannot amend or repeal E.O 220 is rejected, there is no such thing as an irrepealable law. And nothing could prevent the Congress from amending or repealing the E.O. 220 because it is no different from any other law. The last issue, the court ruled that, the concept of separations of powers presupposes mutual respect. Therefore, the implementation of E.O. 220 is an executive prerogative while the sourcing of funds is within the powers of the legislature. In the absence of any grave abuse of discretion, the court cannot correct the acts of either the Executive or the Legislative in respect to policies concerning CAR.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful