Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bengzon Vs Drilon G.R. No. 103524 April 15, 1992
Bengzon Vs Drilon G.R. No. 103524 April 15, 1992
EN BANC
G.R. No. 103524 April 15, 1992
CESAR BENGZON, QUERUBE MAKALINTAL, LINO M. PATAJO, JOSE LEUTERIO, ET AL., petitioners, vs.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, respondents.
A.M. No. 91-8-225-CA April 15, 1992
REQUEST OF RETIRED JUSTICES MANUEL P. BARCELONA, JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ, JUAN O. REYES, JR. and GUARDSON R.
LOOD FOR READJUSTMENT OF THEIR MONTHLY PENSION.
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:
The issue in this petition is the constitutionality of the veto by the President of certain provisions in the General Appropriations Act for
the Fiscal Year 1992 relating to the payment of the adjusted pensions of retired Justices of the Supreme Court and the Court of
Appeals.
The petitioners are retired Justices of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals who are currently receiving monthly pensions under
Republic Act No. 910 as amended by Republic Act No. 1797. They filed the instant petition on their own behalf and in representation of
all other retired Justices of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals similarly situated.
Named respondents are Hon. Franklin Drilon the Executive Secretary, Hon. Guillermo Carague as Secretary of the Department of
Budget and Management, and Hon. Rosalinda Cajucom, the Treasurer of the Philippines. The respondents are sued in their official
capacities, being officials of the Executive Department involved in the implementation of the release of funds appropriated in the Annual
Appropriations Law.
We treat the Comments of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) as an Answer and decide the petition on its merits.
The factual backdrop of this case is as follows:
On June 20, 1953, Republic Act No, 910 was enacted to provide the retirement pensions of Justices of the Supreme Court and of the
Court of Appeals who have rendered at least twenty (20) years service either in the Judiciary or in any other branch of the Government
or in both, having attained the age of seventy (70) years or who resign by reason of incapacity to discharge the duties of the office. The
retired Justice shall receive during the residue of his natural life the salary which he was receiving at the time of his retirement or
resignation.
Republic Act No. 910 was amended by Republic Act No. 1797 (approved on June 21, 1957) which provided that:
Sec. 3-A. In case the salary of Justices of the Supreme Court or of the Court of Appeals is increased or decreased, such increased or
decreased salary shall, for purposes of this Act, be deemed to be the salary or the retirement pension which a Justice who as of June
twelve, nineteen hundred fifty-four had ceased to be such to accept another position in the Government or who retired was receiving at
the time of his cessation in office. Provided, that any benefits that have already accrued prior to such increase or decrease shall not be
affected thereby.
Identical retirement benefits were also given to the members of the Constitutional Commissions under Republic Act No. 1568, as
amended by Republic Act No. 3595. On November 12, 1974, on the occasion of the Armed Forces Loyalty Day, President Marcos
signed Presidential Decree 578 which extended similar retirement benefits to the members of the Armed Forces giving them also the
automatic readjustment features of Republic Act No. 1797 and Republic Act No. 3595.
Two months later, however, President Marcos issued Presidential Decree 644 on January 25, 1975 repealing Section 3-A of Republic
Act No. 1797 and Republic Act No. 3595 (amending Republic Act No. 1568 and Presidential Decree No. 578) which authorized the
adjustment of the pension of the retired Justices of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Chairman and members of the Constitutional
Commissions and the officers and enlisted members of the Armed Forces to the prevailing rates of salaries.
Significantly, under Presidential Decree 1638 the automatic readjustment of the retirement pension of officers and enlisted men was
subsequently restored by President Marcos. A later decree Presidential Decree 1909 was also issued providing for the automatic
readjustment of the pensions of members of the Armed Forces who have retired prior to September 10, 1979.
While the adjustment of the retirement pensions for members of the Armed Forces who number in the tens of thousands was restored,
that of the retired Justices of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals who are only a handful and fairly advanced in years, was not.
Realizing the unfairness of the discrimination against the members of the Judiciary and the Constitutional Commissions, Congress
approved in 1990 a bill for the reenactment of the repealed provisions of Republic Act No. 1797 and Republic Act No. 3595. Congress
was under the impression that Presidential Decree 644 became law after it was published in the Official Gazette on April 7, 1977. In the
explanatory note of House Bill No. 16297 and Senate Bill No. 740, the legislature saw the need to reenact Republic Act Nos. 1797 and
3595 to restore said retirement pensions and privileges of the retired Justices and members of the Constitutional Commissions, in order
to assure those serving in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Constitutional Commissions adequate old age pensions even
during the time when the purchasing power of the peso has been diminished substantially by worldwide recession or inflation. This is
underscored by the fact that the petitioner retired Chief Justice, a retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court and the retired
Presiding Justice are presently receiving monthly pensions of P3,333.33, P2,666.66 and P2,333.33 respectively.
President Aquino, however vetoed House Bill No. 16297 on July 11, 1990 on the ground that according to her "it would erode the very
foundation of the Government's collective effort to adhere faithfully to and enforce strictly the policy on standardization of compensation
as articulated in Republic Act No. 6758 known as Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989." She further said that "the
Government should not grant distinct privileges to select group of officials whose retirement benefits under existing laws already enjoy
preferential treatment over those of the vast majority of our civil service servants."
Prior to the instant petition, however, Retired Court of Appeals Justices Manuel P. Barcelona, Juan P. Enriquez, Juan O. Reyes, Jr. and
Guardson R. Lood filed a letter/petition dated April 22, 1991 which we treated as Administrative Matter No. 91-8-225-CA. The
petitioners asked this Court far a readjustment of their monthly pensions in accordance with Republic Act No. 1797. They reasoned out
that Presidential Decree 644 repealing Republic Act No. 1797 did not become law as there was no valid publication pursuant to Tañada
v. Tuvera, (136 SCRA 27 [1985]) and 146 SCRA 446 [1986]). Presidential Decree 644 promulgated on January 24, 1975 appeared for
the first time only in the supplemental issue of the Official Gazette, (Vol. 74, No. 14) purportedly dated April 4, 1977 but published only
on September 5, 1983. Since Presidential Decree 644 has no binding force and effect of law, it therefore did not repeal Republic Act
No. 1797.
In a Resolution dated November 28, 1991 the Court acted favorably on the request. The dispositive portion reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, the requests of retired Justices Manuel P. Barcelona, Juan P. Enriquez, Juan O. Reyes and Guardson Lood are
GRANTED. It is hereby AUTHORIZED that their monthly pensions be adjusted and paid on the basis of RA 1797 effective January 1,
1991 without prejudice to the payment on their pension differentials corresponding to the previous years upon the availability of funds
for the purpose.
Pursuant to the above resolution, Congress included in the General Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 1992 certain appropriations for
the Judiciary intended for the payment of the adjusted pension rates due the retired Justices of the Supreme Court and Court of
Appeals.
The pertinent provisions in House Bill No. 34925 are as follows:
XXVIII. THE JUDICIARY
A. Supreme Court of the Philippines and the Lower Courts.
For general administration, administration of personnel benefits, supervision of courts, adjudication of constitutional questions appealed
and other cases, operation and maintenance of the Judicial and Bar Council in the Supreme Court, and the adjudication of regional
court cases, metropolitan court cases, municipal trial court cases in Cities, municipal circuit court cases, municipal, court cases, Shari'a
district court cases and Shari'a circuit court cases as indicated hereunder P2,095,651,000
Special Provisions.
1. Augmentation of any Item in the Court's Appropriations. Any savings in the appropriation for the Supreme Court and the Lower
Courts may be utilized by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to augment any item of the Court's appropriations for: (a) printing of
decisions and publications of Philippine Reports; b) commutable terminal leaves of Justices and other personnel of the Supreme Court
and any payment of adjusted pension rates to retired Justices entitled thereto pursuant to Administrative Matter No. 91-8-225-CA; (c)
repair, maintenance, improvement, and other operating expenses of the courts' books and periodicals; (d) purchase, maintenance and
improvement of printing equipment; e) necessary expenses for the employment of temporary employees, contractual and casual
employees, for judicial administration; f) maintenance and improvement of the Court's Electronic Data Processing; (g) extraordinary
expenses of the Chief Justice, attendance in international conferences and conduct of training programs; (h) commutable transportation
and representation allowances and fringe benefits for Justices, Clerks of Court, Court Administrator, Chief of Offices and other Court
personnel in accordance with the rates prescribed by law; and (i) compensation of attorneys-de-oficio; PROVIDED, that as mandated
by LOI No. 489 any increases in salary and allowances shall be subject to the usual procedures and policies as provided for under P.D.
No. 985 and other pertinent laws. (page 1071, General Appropriations Act, FY 1992; Emphasis supplied)
4. Payment of Adjusted Pension Rates to Retired Justices. The amount herein appropriated for payment of pensions to retired judges
and justices shall include the payment of pensions at the adjusted rates to retired justices of the Supreme Court entitled thereto
pursuant to the ruling of the Court in Administrative Matter No. 91-8-225-C.A. (page 1071, General Appropriations Act, FY 1992).