Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 54 views

    Bengzon V Drilon 208 SCRA 133

    Uploaded by

    John Basil Manuel
    The Supreme Court ruled President Aquino's veto of portions of the General Appropriations Bill relating to pension adjustments for retired justices as unconstitutional for three reasons: 1) The veto violated the separation of powers doctrine by overriding decisions of the Supreme Court. 2) The president does not have the power to amend or repeal existing laws passed by previous administrations. 3) The president's power to veto items does not allow vetoing only part of a line item - the entire line item must be vetoed or not at all. Vetoing only part of the adjustment for pensions but not other departments was invalid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Bengzon V Drilon 208 SCRA 133

    Uploaded by

    John Basil Manuel
    54 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled President Aquino's veto of portions of the General Appropriations Bill relating to pension adjustments for retired justices as unconstitutional for three reasons: 1) The veto violated the separation of powers doctrine by overriding decisions of the Supreme Court. 2) The president does not have the power to amend or repeal existing laws passed by previous administrations. 3) The president's power to veto items does not allow vetoing only part of a line item - the entire line item must be vetoed or not at all. Vetoing only part of the adjustment for pensions but not other departments was invalid.

    Original Title

    Bengzon v Drilon 208 SCRA 133

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled President Aquino's veto of portions of the General Appropriations Bill relating to pension adjustments for retired justices as unconstitutional for three reasons: 1) The veto violated the separation of powers doctrine by overriding decisions of the Supreme Court. 2) The president does not have the power to amend or repeal existing laws passed by previous administrations. 3) The president's power to veto items does not allow vetoing only part of a line item - the entire line item must be vetoed or not at all. Vetoing only part of the adjustment for pensions but not other departments was invalid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    54 views1 page

    Bengzon V Drilon 208 SCRA 133

    Uploaded by

    John Basil Manuel
    The Supreme Court ruled President Aquino's veto of portions of the General Appropriations Bill relating to pension adjustments for retired justices as unconstitutional for three reasons: 1) The veto violated the separation of powers doctrine by overriding decisions of the Supreme Court. 2) The president does not have the power to amend or repeal existing laws passed by previous administrations. 3) The president's power to veto items does not allow vetoing only part of a line item - the entire line item must be vetoed or not at all. Vetoing only part of the adjustment for pensions but not other departments was invalid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Bengzon v Drilon 208 SCRA 133

    G. R. No. 103524, April 15, 1992

    Facts:

    Republic Act No. 1797, as amended, was enacted to provide the Justices of the Supreme
    Court and of the Court of Appeals retirement pensions. Eventually, President Marcos
    issued Presidential Decree 644 modifying the pensions to be fixed to the then prevailing
    salary rates, instead of giving them automatic readjustment feature (i.e. pension to
    increase or decrease as the salary at the time increases or decreases), like what they had
    previously in RA 1797.

    Having the impression that PD 644 repealed RA 1797, which resulted to the
    discrimination against retired members of the Judiciary in terms of pension rates,
    Congress approved House Bill No. 16297 (HB 16297) to restore the automatic
    readjustment feature. However, President Aquino vetoed the bill for it would allegedly
    disrupt the compensation standardization. It turned out however, that absent its
    publication, PD 644 has never become a valid law, making HB 16297 superfluous for RA
    1797 was still in effect. Additionally, the veto on HB 16297 produced no effect. Pursuant
    to such, Congress included in the General Appropriations Bill (GAB) for Fiscal Year
    1992 certain appropriations for the Judiciary intended for the payment of the adjusted
    pension rates. President Aquino vetoed particular provisions in GAB.

    This action assails the constitutionality of President Aquino’s veto of specific provisions
    in GAB on the ground that: (1) the veto by the Executive violates the doctrine of
    separation of powers; (2) the subject veto is not an item veto; (3) the veto impairs the
    Fiscal Autonomy guaranteed (4) the veto deprives the retired Justices of their rights to the
    pensions due them

    ISSUES:

    Whether or not the veto of the President on that portion of the General Appropriations bill
    is constitutional.

    HELD:

    The Justices of the Court have vested rights to the accrued pension that is due to them in
    accordance to Republic Act 1797 which was never repealed. The president has no power
    to set aside and override the decision of the Supreme Court neither does the president
    have the power to enact or amend statutes promulgated by her predecessors much less to
    the repeal of existing laws.

    The Supreme Court also explained that the veto is unconstitutional since the power of the
    president to disapprove any item or items in the appropriations bill does not grant the
    authority to veto part of an item and to approve the remaining portion of said item. It
    appears that in the same item, the Presidents vetoed some portion of it and retained the
    others. This cannot be done. The rule is: the Executive must veto a bill in its entirety or
    not at all; the Executive must veto an entire line item in its entirety or not at all. In this
    case, the president did not veto the entire line item of the general adjustment fund. She
    merely vetoed the portion which pertained to the pensions of the justices but did not veto
    the other items covering obligations to the other departments of the government.

    You might also like