Demetrio G. Demetria et al.

vs Hon Manuel Alba

G.R. No. 71977, February 27, 1987

Doctrine:
Under the Judicial Department as to the one of the requirements of Judicial Review or
Inquiry, which the decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the
determination of the case itself.

Background of the case:

 This case was decided under the 1973 Constitution
 Petitioners – identified themselves as a concerned citizen being members of the
National Assembly/Batasan Pambansa representing their millions of constituents,
as parties with general interest common to all the people of the Philippines, and as
taxpayers
 Respondent – being in his capacity as the then Minister of Budget

Facts:
Petitioner assailed the constitutionality on the provision of Presidential Decree no. 1177,
also known as the Budget Reform Decree of 1977 specifically section 44, paragraph 1 of
the said provision. Demetria sought to prohibit public respondent from disbursing funds
pursuant to PD1177 with the listed grounds of the following:

1. The provision infringes upon the fundamental law by authorizing the illegal transfer
of public moneys.
2. It is repugnant to the constitution as it fails to specify the objectives and purposes
for which the proposed transfer of funds are to be made.
3. It allows the president to override the safeguards, form and procedure prescribed
by the constitution in approving appropriations.
4. Amounts to an undue delegation of legislative powers to the executive.
5. The threatened and continuing transfer of funds by the President and the
implementation thereof by the Budget Minister and the Treasurer of the Philippines
are without or in excess of their authority and jurisdiction.

The Solicitor General, counsel for the public respondents, questioned the legal standing
of petitioners, and there being no justiciable controversy fit for resolution or determination
of such case. He further contended that the provision under consideration was enacted
pursuant to Section 16[5], Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution which held that one branch
of the government cannot be enjoined by another, coordinate branch in its performance
of duties within the latter's sphere of responsibility.

On February 27, 1986, as a result of the change of the administration from 1973
Constitution to Freedom Constitution, court required public respondent to file a rejoinder.
The Solicitor General filed a rejoinder with a motion to dismiss, setting forth as grounds
therefor the abrogation of Section 16[5], Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution by the
 Freedom Constitution of March 25, 1986, which has allegedly rendered the instant petition
moot and academic.
Issue:
Whether or not section 44, par 1 of the Presidential Decree no. 1177, also known as the
Budget Reform Decree of 1977 is constitutional.

Ruling:
There are three bases on the ruling of the Supreme Court as to the argument raised by
both parties:

I. As to the legal standing..

It is well-settled principle that the validity of the statute may be contested only by
one who will sustain a direct, actual or potential injury in consequences of its enforcement.
But as a prevailing view, there is this American Jurisprudence that includes taxpayers
that may therefore question the constitutionality of statutes requiring expenditure of public
money or the disbursement of proper funds.

II. As to One Branch of the Government enjoining another..

Where the legislature or the executive branch is acting within the limits of its
authority, the judiciary cannot and ought not to interfere with the former. But where the
legislature or the executive acts beyond the scope of its constitutional powers, it becomes
the duty of the judiciary to declare what the other branches of the government had
assumed to do as void.

III. As to the constitutionality..

The prohibition to transfer an appropriation for one item to another was explicit and
categorical under the 1973 Constitution. Paragraph 1 of Section 44 of P.D. No.1177
unduly over extends the privilege granted under said Section 16[5], Article VIII. It does
not only completely disregard the standards set in the fundamental law, thereby
amounting to an undue delegation of legislative powers, but likewise goes beyond the
tenor thereof. Indeed, such constitutional infirmities render the provision in question null
and void.
Thus, the Supreme Court being the conscience of the government, emphasize
that, “For the love of money is the root of all evil: ..." and money belonging to no one in
particular, i.e. public funds, provide an even greater temptation for misappropriation and
embezzlement.
Wherefore, the instant petition is granted. Par 1 of Section 44 of the Presidential
Decree no. 1177, also known as the Budget Reform Decree of 1977 is hereby declared
null and void for being unconstitutional.

Note:
Kindly include the "seven pillars" enunciated by Justice Brandeis in Ashwander v. TVA,
297 U.S. 288 (1936) argued by the public respondent, as reference to this case.