BENGZON VS.

DRILON
G.R. No. 103524, April 15, 1992

Petitioners: CESAR BENGZON, QUERUBE MAKALINTAL, LINO M. PATAJO, JOSE LEUTERIO, ET AL.
Respondents: HON. FRANKLIN N. DRILON, in his capacity as Executive Secretary, HON.
GUILLERMO CARAGUE, in his capacity as Secretary of Department of Budget and Management,
and HON. ROSALINA CAJUCOM, in her capacity as National Treasurer

FACTS

The petitioners are retired Justices of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals who are
currently receiving monthly pensions under R.A. No. 910 as amended by R.A. No. 1797. Section
3-A, which authorizes said pensions, of R.A. No. 1797 was repealed by President Marcos. The
legislature saw the need to re-enact said R.A.s to restore said retirement pensions and
privilege. President Aquino, however, vetoed House Bill No. 16297 as well as portions of
Section 1 and the entire Section 4 of the Special Provisions for the Supreme Court of the
Philippines and the Lower Courts (GAA of FY 1992).

ISSUE

Whether the veto of the President on that portion of the General Appropriations bill is
constitutional.

HELD

No. The Justices of the Court have vested rights to the accrued pension that is due to them in
accordance to Republic Act 1797 which was never repealed. The president has no power to set
aside and override the decision of the Supreme Court neither does the president have the
power to enact or amend statutes promulgated by her predecessors much less to repeal
existing laws.

The Supreme Court also explained that the veto is unconstitutional since the power of the
president to disapprove any item or items in the appropriations bill does not grant the authority
to veto part of an item and to approve the remaining portion of said item. It appears that in the
same item, the President vetoed some portion of it and retained the others. This cannot be
done. The rule is: the Executive must veto a bill in its entirety or not at all; the Executive must
veto an entire line item in its entirety or not at all. In this case, the president did not veto the
entire line item of the general adjustment fund. She merely vetoed the portion which pertained
to the pensions of the justices but did not veto the other items covering obligations to the other
departments of the government.