Bengzon V Drilon

CESAR BENGZON VS. HON. FRANKLIN N.
DRILON
G.R. NO. 103524. APRIL 15, 1992
PONENTE: Gutierez, Jr., J
COURT DECIDING: Supreme Court - En Banc
RELIEF: Court to review the instant petition filed by retired SC justices and CA justices on the
constitutionality of the vetoed portion of General Appropriation Act of 1992. The petitioners
claimed that the said veto has no legal obstacle to the continued payment of their adjusted
pensions pursuant to the Court's former resolution.
DOCTRINE: Veto power of the President - No President may veto the provisions of a law
enacted thirty-five (35) years before his or her term of office. Neither may the President set aside
or reverse a final and executory judgment of this Court through the exercise of the veto power.
SUMMARY: This case involved the General Appropriation Act of 1992. This law has
appropriated 500,000,00 php for the general fund adjustment for operational and special
requirements (as stated in the provision) and one of the authorized uses was the adjustment of
pension of retired justices as authorized by an earlier law. President Aquino however vetoed the
use of the fund, specifically the 500,000,000 allocations. The Court declared the veto
unconstitutional, the court asserted that the President cannot veto a particular portion rather
must veto an entire item.
FACTS:
The petitioners are retired Justices of the Supreme Court and the 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. Rosalina
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.
On June 20,1953, RA 910 was enacted to provide the retirement pensions of Justices of
the SC and of the CA who have rendered at least twenty (20) years of 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- which authorizes the
increase of the pension for retired Justices, officers of Constitutional Commission and AFP
officials.
Marcos repealed the said law (via P.D. No. 644), but later on restored the readjustments
for AFP retirees only, excluding CC and Justices.
Realizing unfairness and discrimination against Judiciary and Constitutional Commission,
Congress approved the reenactment of the repealed provision of R.A.1797 (via HB no.
16297 and SB no. 740).
President Aquino however vetoed House Bill No. 16297 on July 11, 1990 on the grounds
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".
It turns out, however, that P.D. No. 644 never became valid law. If P.D. No. 644 was not
law, it follows that Rep. Act No. 1797 was not repealed and continues to be effective up
to the present. In the same way that it was enforced from 1957 to 1975, so should it be
enforced today.
House Bill No. 16297 was superfluous as it tried to restore benefits which were never
taken away validly. The veto of House Bill No. 16297 in 1990 did not also produce any
effect. Both were based on erroneous and non-existent premises.
From the foregoing discussion, it can be seen that when the President vetoed certain
provisions of the 1992 General Appropriations Act, she was actually vetoing Republic Act
No. 1797 which, of course, is beyond her power to accomplish.
Presidential Decree No. 644 which purportedly repealed Republic Act No. 1797 never
achieved that purpose because it was not properly published. It never became a law.
ISSUE: Whether or not the veto made by the President on certain provisions in the General
Appropriation Act for the FY 1992 relating to the payment of the adjusted retired justices of
supreme court and court of appeals is constitutional
(This case is an example of the vetoing power of the President for a passage of a bill.)
HELD: No.Veto is unconstitutional

Petition was GRANTED. The questioned veto has been set aside as illegal and
unconstitutional. The vetoed provisions of the 1992 Appropriation Act are declared valid and
subsisting.
RATIO: (As state in the case) The act of the Executive in vetoing the particular provisions is an
exercise of a constitutionally vested power. But even as the Constitution grants the power, it also
provides limitations to its exercise. The veto power is not absolute. The pertinent provision of the
Constitution reads:
"The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an
appropriation, revenue or tariff bill but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which
he does not object." (Section 27(2), Article VI, Constitution)
The OSG is correct, when it states that the Executive must veto a bill in its entirety or not at all.
He or she cannot act like an editor crossing out specific lines, provisions, or paragraphs in a bill
that he or she dislikes. In the exercise of the veto power, it is generally all or nothing. However,
when it comes to appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, the Administration needs the money to run
the machinery of government and it cannot veto the entire bill even if it may contain objectionable
features. The President is, therefore, compelled to approve into law the entire bill, including its
undesirable parts. It is for this reason that the Constitution has wisely provided the "item veto
powers" to avoid inexpedient riders being attached to an indispensable appropriation or revenue
measure. The Constitution provides that only a particular item or items may be vetoed. The power
to disapprove any item or items in an appropriate bill does not grant the authority to veto a part of
an item and to approve the remaining portion of the same item.
SEPARATE OPINIONS: No separate opinions

Bengzon V Drilon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bengzon V Drilon

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bengzon V Drilon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CESAR BENGZON VS. HON. FRANKLIN N.

PONENTE: Gutierez, Jr., J

COURT DECIDING: Supreme Court - En Banc

HELD: No.Veto is unconstitutional

SEPARATE OPINIONS: No separate opinions

You might also like