Philippine Constitution Association v.

Enriquez, 235 SCRA 506 (1994)

Case Abstract:
This is a consolidation of cases that challenge the president’s veto power concerning the General Appropriations Bill
of 1994, as well as the constitutionality of the pork barrel. The Philippine Constitution Association (PHILCONSA)
disputes the countrywide development fund. PHILCONSA argues that while Congress can allocate funds, it cannot
specify the items to which those funds will be applied, as that is the role of the executive.

In G.R. No. 113766, after the president vetoed some provisions of the GAB of 1994, neither house of congress
attempted to override the veto. Instead, Senators Wigberto Tañada and Alberto Romulo sought prohibition and
mandamus writs against Executive Secretary Teofisto Guingona et al. Tañada et al contest the constitutionality of: (1)
the veto on four special provisions added to items in the GAB of 1994 for the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP)
and the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH); and (2) the conditions imposed by the President in
implementing certain appropriations for the CAFGU’s, the DPWH, and the National Housing Authority (NHA).

Doctrine/s:

Doctrine Description
Locus standi (judicial The Court can exercise its power of judicial review to address issues of constitutionality
review) only if the following conditions are met:

1. There is an actual and appropriate case.

2. The party raising the constitutional question has a personal and substantial interest.
3. The request for judicial review is made at the earliest opportunity.
4. The constitutional question is the lis mota, or the issue that initiates a lawsuit, of the
case.

Fundamentals of
judicial review
- exercise of the power of judicial review by the courts is implicitly recognized in
Section 4(2) Article VIII of the Constitution
- power of the courts to test the validity of executive and legislative acts for
their conformity with the Constitution
- the judiciary enforces and upholds the supremacy of the Constitution
- "Moderating power" to "determine the proper allocation of powers of the
different branches of government
- includes the duty of this Court to determine whether the acts of the "two
coordinate branches have adhered to the mandate of the fundamental law

Legal standing of the - member of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives for that matter,
senate has the legal standing to question the validity of a presidential veto or a
condition imposed on an item in an appropriation bill

- Where the veto is claimed to have been made without or in excess of the
authority vested on the President by the Constitution, the issue of an
impermissible intrusion of the Executive into the domain of the Legislature arise
Article 6 Section 25 - The Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the
(1) of the 1987 President for the operation of the Government as specified in the budget. The
Constitution form, content, and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by
law.

1|Pa ge
Article 6 Section 29 - No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an
of the 1987 appropriation made by law.
Constitution
- No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed,
directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church,
denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest,
preacher, minister, or other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except
when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed
forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.

- All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a
special fund and paid out for such purpose only. If the purpose for which a
special fund was created has been fulfilled or abandoned, the balance, if any,
shall be transferred to the general funds of the Government.
Article 8 of Civil - Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the constitution shall from
Code a part of the legal system of the Philippines
- Court's interpretation of the law is part of that law as of the date of its
enactment since the court's interpretation merely establishes the contemporary
legislative intent that the construed law purports to carry into effect
doctrine of • The President cannot use his item-veto to take over constitutional powers
"inappropriate given to the legislature, and likewise, the legislature cannot deprive the
provision" Governor of his constitutional powers as chief executive officer by including in
a general appropriation bill matters that should be enacted in separate
legislation.
• The Governor’s constitutional power to veto bills of general legislation cannot
be limited by carefully placing such measures in a general appropriation bill,
forcing the Governor to choose between approving unacceptable substantive
legislation or vetoing “items” of expenditures essential to government
operation.
• The legislature cannot give a bill immunity from executive veto by its location,
nor can it bypass the Governor’s veto power over substantive legislation by
cleverly drafting general law measures so they appear to be true conditions or
limitations on an item of appropriation.
• The legislature should not be allowed to impair the constitutional
responsibilities and functions of a co-equal branch of government in violation of
the separation of powers doctrine.
• When the legislature inserts inappropriate provisions in a general appropriation
bill, such provisions must be treated as “items” for purposes of the Governor’s
item veto power over general appropriation bills. This is to prevent the
legislature from using its appropriation power to infringe on the Governor’s
constitutional right to veto matters of substantive legislation.

Substantial facts:
• House Bill No. 10900, the General Appropriation Bill of 1994 (GAB of 1994), was passed and approved by
both houses of Congress on December 17, 1993. It imposed conditions and limitations on certain items of
appropriations in the proposed budget previously submitted by the President.
• The President signed the bill into law on December 30, 1993, and declared it to have become Republic Act
No. 7663, entitled “AN ACT APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
PHILIPPINES FROM JANUARY ONE TO DECEMBER THIRTY ONE, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND NINETY-FOUR,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES” (GAA of 1994).
• The President delivered his Presidential Veto Message, specifying the provisions of the bill he vetoed and on
which he imposed certain conditions.
• Several petitions were filed questioning the constitutionality of certain provisions and vetoes in the GAA of
1994.
• The petitions were filed by various parties including members of Congress, a non-stock domestic
corporation, and taxpayers. They challenged aspects such as the conditions imposed by the President in the
2|Pa ge
 items of the GAA of 1994 and the constitutionality of the veto of the special provision in the appropriation
for debt service.
• In G.R. No. 11388, Senators Tañada and Romulo filed a petition against the same respondents in G.R. No.
113766, challenging the constitutionality of:

1. The veto on four special provision added to items in the GAA of 1994 for the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP) and the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).
2. The conditions imposed by the President in the implementation of certain appropriations for the
CAFGU’s, the DPWH, and the National Housing Authority (NHA).
• Petitioners also sought temporary restraining orders to prevent respondents Secretary of Budget and
Management, National Treasurer and COA from enforcing the questioned provisions of the GAA of 1994,
but the Court declined to grant said provisional reliefs.
• Due to the importance and novelty of most of the issues raised in the four petitions, former Chief Justice
Enrique M. Fernando and former Associate Justice Irene Cortes were invited to submit their respective
memoranda as Amicus curiae.
• Petitioners argue that even if the veto of the Special Provision on the ceiling for debt payment is valid, the
President cannot automatically appropriate funds for debt payment without complying with the conditions
for automatic appropriation under the provisions of R.A. No. 4860 as amended by P.D. No. 81 and the
provisions of P.D. No. 1177 as amended by the Administrative Code of 1987 and P.D. No. 1967.
• The writ of prohibition will not be issued based on the fear that official actions will be done in contravention
of the laws.
• The President vetoed the entire paragraph one of the Special Provision of the item on debt service, including
provisions that are germane to and have a direct connection with the item on debt service.
• These provisions, being appropriate provisions, cannot be vetoed separately. Hence, the item veto of said
provisions is void.
• The veto of the Special Provision of the item on debt service is sustained only with respect to the proviso
therein requiring that “any payment in excess of the amount herein, appropriated shall be subject to the
approval of the President of the Philippines with the concurrence of the Congress of the Philippines”

Issue:

Whether or not RA 7663 is violative of Article VI, Section 25 (5) of 1987 Constitution? (YES)

Whether or not the veto of the president on four special provisions is constitutional and valid?
(DEPENDING)

Whether or not the petitioner senators have legal standing to sue? (YES)

Ruling:

Issue
Whether or not RA 7663 is
violative of Article VI,
Section 25 (5) of 1987
Constitution? (YES)
Ruling
Only the Senate President and the Speaker of the House are allowed to approve the
realignment.
Two conditions must be met:

- the funds to be realigned are actually savings

- the transfer is for the purpose of augmenting the items of expenditures to
which said transfer to be made.

Whether or not the
petitioner senators have legal
standing to sue? (YES)
3|Pa ge
As to the certain condition given to the AFP Chief of Staff, it is violative of of Sections
25(5) and 29(1) of the Article VI of the Constitution. The list of those who may be
authorized to transfer funds is exclusive. the AFP Chief of Staff may not be given
authority.
A member of Congress is legally entitled to challenge the legitimacy of a presidential
veto or condition placed on an item in an appropriations bill. If the veto is alleged to
have been executed without or beyond the authority granted to the President by the

Legislature’s territory. An action by the Executive that harms the institution of
Congress results in a derivative but nonetheless significant injury, which a member of
Congress can contest.
Whether or not the veto of
the president on four special
provisions is constitutional
and valid? (DEPENDING)
4|Pa ge
Constitution, it raises the issue of the Executive’s unacceptable intrusion into the
Special provision
Special Provision on Debt Ceiling
Special Provision on Revolving
Funds for SCU’s
Special Provision on Road
Maintenance
Special Provision on Purchase of
Military Equip.
Special Provision on Use of
Savings for AFP Pensions
Special Provision on Conditions
for de-activation of CAFGU’s
VETO/ NOT VETO
VETO VOID
Congress provided for a debt-ceiling.
Vetoed by the Pres. w/o vetoing the
entire appropriation for debt service.
The said provisions are germane to &
have direct relation w/ debt service.
They are appropriate provisions &
cannot be vetoed w/o vetoing the
entire item/appropriation
VETO VALID
said provision allows for the use of
income & creation of revolving fund for
SCU’s. Provision for Western Visayas
State Univ. & Leyte State Colleges
vetoed by Pres. Other SCU’s enjoying
the privilege do so by existing law. Pres.
merely acted in pursuance to existing
law
VETO VOID
Congress specified 30% ratio fo works
for maintenance of roads be contracted
according to guidelines set forth by
DPWH. Vetoed by the Pres. w/o
vetoing the entire appropriation. It is
not an inappropriate provision; it is not
alien to the subj. of road maintenance &
cannot be veoted w/o vetoing the
entire appropriation.
VETO VALID
AFP modernization, prior approval of
Congress required before release of
modernization funds. It is the so-called
legislative veto. Any prov. blocking an
admin. action in implementing a law or
requiring legislative approval must be
subj. of a separate law
VETO VALID
allows Chief of Staff to augment pension
funds through the use of savings.
According to the Consttution, only the
Pres. may exercise such power
pursuant to a specific law. Properly
vetoed
VETO VALID
use of special fund for the
compensation of the said CAFGU’s.
Vetoed, Pres. requires his prior
approval. It is also an amendment to
existing law (PD No. 1597 & RA No.
6758). A provision in an appropriation
 act cannot be used to repeal/amend
existing laws

References:

Article 6 of the 1987 Constitution. Retrieved from https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/the-1987-

constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines/the-1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines-
article-vi/#:~:text=SECTION%2029.,an%20appropriation%20made%20by%20law.

Case-abstract summary. Retrieved from https://uberdigests.info/2011/11/philippine-constitution-association-

vs-enriquez/

Philippine Constitution Association v. Enriquez, 235 SCRA 506 (1994). Retrieved from
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/aug1994/gr_113105_1994.html

5|Pa ge