Pascual vs.

Secretary of Public Works 110 Phil 331 A law was enacted in 1953 containing a provision for the construction,reconstruc tion, repair, extension and improvement of Pasig feeder road terminalswithin Ant onio Subdivision owned by Senator Jose C. Zulueta. Zulueta donated saidparcels of land to the Government 5 months after the enactment of the law, on thecondition that if the Government violates such condition the lands would revert toZulueta. The provincial governor of Rizal, Wenceslao Pascual, questioned the validityof the donation and the Constitutionality of the particular provision, it being ana ppropriation not for a public purpose. Is the appropriation valid? Held: No. The appropriation of amount for the construction on a land owned byprivate i ndividual is invalid imposition since it results in the promotion of privateente rprise, it benefits the property of a particular individual. The provision that theland thereafter be donated to the government does not cure this defect. The r ule isthat if the public advantage or benefit is merely incidental in the promot ion of aparticular enterprise, such defect shall render the law invalid. On the other hand, if what is incidental is the promotion of a private enterprise, the tax law shall bedeemed for public purpose.

CASE DIGEST: Guingona, Jr. vs. Carague G.R. No. 94571. April 22, 1991 FACTS: The 1990 budget consists of P98.4 Billion in automatic appropriation (with P86.8 Billion for debt service) and P155.3 Billion appropriated under RA 6831, otherw ise known as the General Approriations Act, or a total of P233.5 Billion, while the appropriations for the DECS amount to P27,017,813,000.00. The said automatic appropriation for debt service is authorized by PD No. 18, en titled Amending Certain Provisions of Republic Act Numbered Four Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty, as Amended (Re: Foreign Borrowing Act), by PD No. 1177, entitled Re vising the Budget Process in Order to Institutionalize the Budgetary Innovations of the New Society, and by PD No.1967, entitled An Act Strengthening the Guarante e and Payment Positions of the Republic of the Philippines on its Contingent Lia bilities Arising out of Relent and Guaranteed Loans by Appropriating Funds For T he Purpose. The petitioners were questioning the constitutionality of the automatic appropri ation for debt service, it being higher than the budget for education, therefore it is against Section 5(5), Article XIV of the Constitution which mandates to as sign the highest budgetary priority to education. ISSUE: Whether or not the automatic appropriation for debt service is unconstitutional; it being higher than the budget for education. HELD: No. While it is true that under Section 5(5), Article XIV of the Constitution Co ngress is mandated to assign the highest budgetary priority to education, it does not thereby follow that the hands of Congress are so hamstrung as to deprive it the power to respond to the imperatives of the national interest and for the att ainment of other state policies or objectives.

Congress is certainly not without any power, guided only by its good judgment, t o provide an appropriation, that can reasonably service our enormous debtIt is no t only a matter of honor and to protect the credit standing of the country. More especially, the very survival of our economy is at stake. Thus, if in the proce ss Congress appropriated an amount for debt service bigger than the share alloca ted to education, the Court finds and so holds that said appropriation cannot be thereby assailed as unconstitutional COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS VS. QUIJANO-PADILLA (389 SCRA 353) FACTS: The Philippine Congress passed Republic Act No. 8189, otherwise known as the " Voter's Registration Act of 1996," providing for the modernization and computerization of the voters' registration list and theappropriate of funds therefore "in order to establish a clean, compl ete, permanent and updated list of voters." Subsequently, the Commission on Elec tions (COMELEC) promulgated Resolution No. 00-0315approving in principle the Vot er's Registration and Identification System Project (VRIS). The VRIS Projectenvi sions a computerized database system for the May 2004 Elections. Bidding for the supply andinstallation of information technology equipment and ancillary servic es was held. Private RespondentPhotokina Marketing Corporation was declared the winning bidder, the bid amounting to P6.588 BillionPesos and was given the Notic e of Award. However, under Republic Act No. 8760 the budgetappropriated by Congr ess for the COMELECs modernization project was only One (1) Billion Pesos andthat the actual available funds under the Certificate of Availability of Funds (CAF) issued by the Chief Accountant of the COMELEC was only P1.2 Billion Pesos. Due to that fact, COMELEC can no longer pursue the project with Photokina since they do not have sufficient funds for the said project. Meanwhile,Photokina wrote se veral letters requesting the formal execution of the contract, but to no avail. Due to thatfact, Photokina filed a petition for mandamus, prohibition and damage s against the COMELEC and all itscommissioners claiming that since it was the wi nning bidder and was given the Notice of Award, theCOMELEC must formalize the co ntract and since the latter failed to perform its duty under the contracthas cau sed Photokina to incur damages in the preparation of the bid and draft of the co ntract. ISSUES: Whether or not Mandamus is the proper remedy of Photokina in the case at bar. Whether or not Photokina can compel COMELEC to formalize the contract. HELD: Mandamus applies as a remedy only when petitioners right is founded clearly in la w and not when it isdoubtful. Here, the alleged contract, relied upon Photokina as a source of rights which it seeks to beprotected, is being disputed, not only on the ground that it was not perfected but also it is illegal andagainst publi c policy.Since Photokinas bid is beyond the amount appropriated by Congress for t he VRIS Project, the proposedcontract is not binding upon the COMELEC and is con sidered void, the petitioners cannot be compelledby a writ of mandamus to discha rge a duty that involves the exercise of judgment and discretion,especially wher e the disbursement of public funds is concerned. Garcia v mata Facts: Garcia was a reserve officer on active duty who was reversed to inactive status. He filed an action for mandamus to compel the DND and AFP to reinstate h im to active service and readjust his rank and pay emoluments. Garcia claims that his reversion to inactive status is violation of RA 1600 whic h prohibits the reversion of officers with at least 10 years of service.

On the other hand, the AFP and DND contend that the said provision of RA 1600 ha s no relevance or pertinence to the budget in question or to any appropriation i tem therein. (RA 1600 was an appropriation law for 1956-57). Issue: Whether RA 1600 is valid? Does it contain rider in an appropriation bill? Held: The incongruity and irrelevancy are already evident. Section 11 of RA 1600 fails to disclose the relevance to any appropriation item. RA 1600 is an approp riation law for the operation of government while Section 11 refers to a fundame ntal governmental policy of calling to active duty and the reversion of inactive statute of reserve officers in the AFP. Hence it was A NON-APPROPRIATION ITEM INSERTED IN AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE, in v iolation of the constitutional prohibition against RIDERS to the general appropr iation act. It was indeed a new and completely unrelated provision attached to t he GAA. It also violates the rule on one-bill, one subject. The subject to be considered must be expressed in the title of the act. When an act contains provisions whic h are clearly not embraced in the subject of the act, as expressed in the title, such provisions are void, inoperative and without effect. SECTION 11 is unconstitutional. Garcia cannot compel the AFP to reinstate him.

Demetria v Alba G.R. No. 71977, February 27, 1987 FACTS: Petitioners filed as concerned citizens of this country, as members of th e National Assembly/Batasan Pambansa representing their millions of constituents , as parties with general interest common to all the people of the Philippines, and as taxpayers whose vital interests may be affected by the outcome of the rel iefs prayed for. The petitioners assail the constitutionality of the first paragr aph of Sec. 44 of PD 1177 or the Budget Reform Decree of 1977 with a petition fo r prohibition with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. The contents of PD 1177 particularly that of the first paragraph of section 44 extends the privi lege of the president to discriminately transfer funds from one department, bure au, office or agency of the Executive Department of any program, project or acti vity of any department, bureau or office included in the General Appropriations Act or approved after its enactment. ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners have locus standi and fulfill the requisit es for suing as taxpayers and concerned citizens. HELD: The petitioners comply with the legal standing both as concerned citizens and taxpayers. As concerned citizens, the petitioners bring the suit in quest of law and justice. The issue cries out to be solved as justice demands not only f or the vindication of the outraged right but also for the guidance of the bench and bar, and as a restraint upon the future. Furthermore, the petitioner has sta nding to sue as taxpayer. In the determination of the degree of interest essenti al to give the requisite standing to attack the constitutionality of a statute, the general rule is that not only persons individually affected, but also taxpay ers. They have sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditures of mon eys raised by taxation and may therefore question the constitutionality of statu tes requiring expenditure of public moneys. The Supreme Court granted the instan t petition. Paragraph 1 of Section 44 of Presidential Decree No. 1177 was also d eclared null and void for being unconstitutional. Aglipay v. Ruiz GR 45459, 13 March 1937 (64 Phil 201) First Division, Laurel (p) : 5 concur. Facts: In May 1936, the Director of Posts announced in the dailies of Manila tha t he would order the issuance of postage stamps commemorating the celebration in

the City of Manila of the 33rd International Eucharistic Congress, organized by the Roman Catholic Church. The petitioner, Mons. Gregorio Aglipay, Supreme Head of the Philippine Independent Church, in the fulfillment of what he considers t o be a civic duty, requested Vicente Sotto, Esq., member of the Philippine Bar, to denounce the matter to the President of the Philippines. In spite of the prot est of the petitioners attorney, the Director of Posts publicly announced having sent to the United States the designs of the postage for printing. The said stam ps were actually issued and sold though the greater part thereof remained unsold . The further sale of the stamps was sought to be prevented by the petitioner. Issue: Whether the issuance of the postage stamps was in violation of the Consti tution. Held: Religious freedom as a constitutional mandate is not inhibition of profoun d reverence for religion and is not a denial of its influence in human affairs. Religion as a profession of faith to an active power that binds and elevates man to his Creator is recognized. And, in so far as it instills into the minds the purest principles of morality, its influence is deeply felt and highly appreciat ed. When the Filipino people, in the preamble of their Constitution, implored the aid of Divine Providence, in order to establish a government that shall embody their ideals, conserve and develop the patrimony of the nation, promote the gene ral welfare, and secure to themselves and their posterity the blessings of indep endence under a regime of justice, liberty and democracy, they thereby manifested their intense religious nature and placed unfaltering reliance upon Him who gui des the destinies of men and nations. The elevating influence of religion in hum an society is recognized here as elsewhere. Act 4052 contemplates no religious purpose in view. What it gives the Director o f Posts is the discretionary power to determine when the issuance of special pos tage stamps would be advantageous to the Government. Of course, the phrase advantag eous to the Government does not authorize the violation of the Constitution; i.e. to appropriate, use or apply of public money or property for the use, benefit o r support of a particular sect or church. In the case at bar, the issuance of th e postage stamps was not inspired by any sectarian feeling to favor a particular church or religious denominations. The stamps were not issued and sold for the benefit of the Roman Catholic Church, nor were money derived from the sale of th e stamps given to that church. The purpose of the issuing of the stamps was to t ake advantage of an event considered of international importance to give publici ty to the Philippines and its people and attract more tourists to the country. T hus, instead of showing a Catholic chalice, the stamp contained a map of the Phi lippines, the location of the City of Manila, and an inscription that reads Seat XXXIII International Eucharistic Congress, Feb. 3-7, 1937. The Supreme Court deni ed the petition for a writ of prohibition, without pronouncement as to costs.

MANOSCA VS. COURT OF APPEALS [252 SCRA 412; G.R. NO. 106440, 29 JAN. 1996] Facts: The National Historical Institute declared the parcel of land owned by Petitione rs as a nationalhistorical landmark, because it was the site of the birth of Fel ix Manalo, the founder of Iglesia niCristo. The Republic of the Philippines file d an action to appropriate the land. Petitioners arguedthat the expropriation wa s not for a public purpose. Issue: Whether or Not the taking or exercise of eminent domain may be granted. Held: Public use should not be restricted to the traditional uses. The taking is for a public use becauseof the contribution of Felix Manalo to the culture and histor y of the Philippines.

Garces vs. Estenso Facts: The case is about the constitutionality of four resolutions of the barang ay council of Valencia, Ormoc City, regarding the acquisition of the wooden imag e of San Vicente Ferrer to be used in the celebration of his annual feast day. T hat issue was spawned by the controversy as to whether the parish priest or a la yman should have the custody of the image. On March 23, 1976, the said barangay council adopted Resolution No. 5, "reviving the traditional socio-religious cele bration" every fifth day of April "of the feast day of Seor San Vicente Ferrer, t he patron saint of Valencia". Issue: Is the holding of fiesta and having a patron saint for the barrio, valid and constitutional?

Held: Yes. The wooden image was purchased in connection with the celebration of the barrio fiesta honoring the patron saint, San Vicente Ferrer, and not for the purpose of favoring any religion nor interfering with religious matters or the religious beliefs of the barrio residents. One of the highlights of the fiesta w as the mass. Consequently, the image of the patron saint had to be placed in the church when the mass was celebrated. If there is nothing unconstitutional or illegal in holding a fiesta and having a patron saint for the barrio, then any activity intended to facilitate the worsh ip of the patron saint (such as the acquisition and display of his image) cannot be branded as illegal. As noted in the first resolution, the barrio fiesta is a socio-religious affair. Its celebration is an ingrained tradition in rural comm unities. The fiesta relieves the monotony and drudgery of the lives of the masse s.

235 SCRA 506 Philippine Constitution Association, petitioner vs. Enriquez, respondent Facts: RA 7663 (former House bill No. 10900, the General Appropriations Bill of 1994) e ntitled An Act Appropriating Funds for the Operation of the Government of the Phi lippines from January 1 to December 1, 1994, and for other Purposes was approved by the President and vetoed some of the provisions. Petitioners assail the special provision allowing a member of Congress to realig n his allocation for operational expenses to any other expense category claiming that it violates Sec. 25, Art 7 of the Constitution. Issues of constitutionalit y were raised before the Supreme Court. PhilConsA prayed for a writ of prohibition to declare unconstitutional and void a.) Art 16 on the Countrywide Development Fund and b.) The veto of the President of the Special provision of Art XLVIII of the GAA of 1994. 16 members of the Senate sought the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the Exec. Secretary, the Sec of Dept of Budget and Managem ent and the National Treasurer and questions: 1.) Constitutionality of the condi tions imposed by the President in the items of the GAA of 1994 and 2.) the const itutionality of the veto of the special provision in the appropriation for debt services. Senators Tanada and Romulo sought the issuance of the writs of prohibition and m

andamus against the same respondents. Petitioners contest the constitutionality of: 1.) veto on four special provisions added to items in the GAA of 1994 for th e AFP and DPWH; and 2.) the conditions imposed by the President in the implement ation of certain appropriations for the CAFGUs, DPWH, and Natl Highway Authority. Issue: Whether or not the veto of the president on four special provisions is constitut ional and valid? Held: Special Provision on Debt Ceiling Congress provided for a debt-ceiling. Vetoed b y the Pres. w/o vetoing the entire appropriation for debt service. The said prov isions are germane to & have direct relation w/ debt service. They are appropria te provisions & cannot be vetoed w/o vetoing the entire item/appropriation. VETO VOID. Special Provision on Revolving Funds for SCUs said provision allows for the use o f income & creation of revolving fund for SCUs. Provision for Western Visayas Sta te Univ. & Leyte State Colleges vetoed by Pres. Other SCUs enjoying the privilege do so by existing law. Pres. merely acted in pursuance to existing law. VETO VA LID. Special Provision on Road Maintenance Congress specified 30% ratio fo works for maintenance of roads be contracted according to guidelines set forth by DPWH. Ve toed by the Pres. w/o vetoing the entire appropriation. It is not an inappropria te provision; it is not alien to the subj. of road maintenance & cannot be veote d w/o vetoing the entire appropriation. VETO VOID. Special Provision on Purchase of Military Equip. AFP modernization, prior approv al of Congress required before release of modernization funds. It is the so-call ed legislative veto. Any prov. blocking an admin. action in implementing a law o r requiring legislative approval must be subj. of a separate law. VETO VALID. Special Provision on Use of Savings for AFP Pensions allows Chief of Staff to au gment pension funds through the use of savings. According to the Consttution, on ly the Pres. may exercise such power pursuant to a specific law. Properly vetoed . VETO VALID. Special Provision on Conditions for de-activation of CAFGUs use of special fund f or the compensation of the said CAFGUs. Vetoed, Pres. requires his prior approval . It is also an amendment to existing law (PD No. 1597 & RA No. 6758). A provisi on in an appropriation act cannot be used to repeal/amend existing laws. VETO VA LID.