PASCUAL V.

SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS

Section 29.
1. No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.
2. 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,
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.
3. 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. f 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 !overnment.
Doctrine: No appropriation of state funds can be made for other than a public
purpose. Appropriation for private purpose is null and void.
Facts:
Petitioner Gov. Pascual (Provincial Governor of Rizal) instituted an action for
declaratory relief and injunction on the ground that RA No. 920 (An Act
Aroriating !unds for Pu"lic #or$s) consisting of an ite% of P&'(000.00 for the
construction( reconstruction( reair( e)tension( and i%rove%ent of Pasig feeder
road ter%inals do not connect any govern%ent roerty or any i%ortant re%ises
to the %ain high*ay "ut to the rivate streets of Antonio +u"division, a su"division
currently and rivately o*ned "y +enator -ulueta at the ti%e of the assage and
aroval of the said Act. Petitioner Gov. Pascual also alleged that in order to give
the said Act a se%"lance of legality( +enator -ulueta o.ered to donate the said
rojected feeder roads to the %uniciality of Pasig( Rizal. /he etition also alleges
that the construction of feeder roads( to "e underta$en *ith the aroriation of
P&'( 000.00 *ould have the e.ect of relieving +en. -ulueta of the "urden of
constructing his su"division streets or roads at his o*n e)enses and *ould greatly
enhance or increase the value of his su"division.
Issue/s:
#0N the contested ite% of P&'( 000.00 in RA No. 920 is null and void and #0N the
alleged deed of donation is unconstitutional and illegal. (12+3)
Held:
/he legislature is *ithout o*er to aroriate u"lic revenue for anything "ut a
u"lic urose. Incidental advantage to the u"lic or to the state( *hich results
fro% the ro%otion of rivate interests and the roserity of rivate enterrises or
"usiness( does not justify their aid "y the use of u"lic %oney. 4oney raised "y
ta)ation can "e e)anded only for u"lic uroses and not for the advantage of
rivate individuals.