BENGZON VS. DRILON G.R.

103524 April 15, 1992 208 SCRA 133

BENGZON VS. DRILON

G.R. 103524 April 15, 1992 208 SCRA 133

FACTS:

Petitioners are retired justices of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals who are currently
receiving pensions under RA 910 as amended by RA 1797. President Marcos issued a decree
repealing section 3-A of RA 1797 which authorized the adjustment of the pension of retired
justices and officers and enlisted members of the AFP. PD 1638 was eventually issued by
Marcos which provided for the automatic readjustment of the pension of officers and enlisted
men was restored, while that of the retired justices was not. RA 1797 was restored through HB
16297 in 1990. When her advisers gave the wrong information that the questioned provisions in
1992 GAA were an attempt to overcome her earlier veto in 1990, President Aquino issued the
veto now challenged in this petition.

It turns out that PD 644 which repealed RA 1797 never became a valid law absent its
publication, thus there was no law. It follows that RA 1797 was still in effect and HB 16297 was
superfluous because it tried to restore benefits which were never taken away validly. The veto of
HB 16297 did not also produce any effect.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the veto of the President of certain provisions in the GAA of FY 1992 relating to
the payment of the adjusted pensions of retired Justices is constitutional or valid.

HELD:

The veto of these specific provisions in the GAA is tantamount to dictating to the Judiciary ot its
funds should be utilized, which is clearly repugnant to fiscal autonomy. Pursuant to
constitutional mandate, the Judiciary must enjoy freedom in the disposition of the funds allocated
to it in the appropriations law.
Any argument which seeks to remove special privileges given by law to former Justices on the
ground that there should be no grant of distinct privileges or “preferential treatment” to retired
Justices ignores these provisions of the Constitution and in effect asks that these Constitutional
provisions on special protections for the Judiciary be repealed.
The petition is granted and the questioned veto is illegal and the provisions of 1992 GAA are
declared valid and subsisting.