JUAN BENGZON vs.

THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE AND THE INSULAR AUDITOR

G. R. No. L-42821 January 18, 1936
Malcolm, J.:

FACTS
Juan Bengzon was appointed as Justice of the Peace on March 7, 1912 in Lingayen, Pangasinan. Upon reaching 65
years of age on January 14, 1933 he would have to retire in accordance with the law. He later sought communications to
the Secretary of Justice, the Governor-General, and the Insular Auditor to claim gratuity pursuant to Act No. 4051 “An Act
to provide for the payment of retirement gratuities to officers and employees of the Insular Government retired from the
service as a result of the reorganization or reduction of personnel thereof, including the justices of the peace who must
relinquish office in accordance with the provisions of Act Numbered Thirty-eight hundred and ninety-nine, and for other
purposes.” but all these officials advised him that he was not entitled to the benefits of the Act.

Section 7 thereof specifically provides that gratuity may be availed of by justices like Bengzon but that provision has
been vetoed by the governor-general. Bengzon said the veto is beyond the power of the governor-general hence he filed a
petition for mandamus to compel the Secretary of Justice to implement the gratuity provision of the said law.

ISSUE
Whether or not the veto of the Governor-General of section 7 of Act No. 4051, the Retirement Gratuity law, is a
legislative act or not.

RULING / HELD
Yes. The governor-general in vetoing the said item of the law has acted within his power; for this is also in compliance
with the Organic Act Section 19 of the former organic Act, the Act of Congress of August 29, 1916, established the practice
for the enactment of a law, including the sanctioning of the veto power by the governor-general. Specifically it provided:
The Governor-General shall have the power to veto any particular item or items of an appropriation bill, but the veto shall
not affect the item or items to which he does not object.

The SC then is constrained to rule against Bengzon and to hold that the veto by the Governor-General of section 7 of
Act No. 4051 was in conformity with the legislattive purpose and the provisions of the Organic Act.