PHILCONSA VS.

ENRIQUEZ

FACTS:
 General Appropriations Act of 1994 RA 7663 was passed and approved by Congress. It
authorized the members of Congress to propose and identify projects in “Pork Barrels”, allotted
to them and to realign their respective operating budgets. Also, the president vetoed some
provisions and imposed conditions on an item in the appropriations bill
 Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the CDF. Petitioners claim that the power given to the
members of Congress to propose and identify the projects and activities to be funded by the
Countrywide Development Fund is an encroachment by the legislature on executive power,
since said power in an appropriation act is in implementation of a law. They argue that the
proposal and identification of the projects do not involve the making of laws or the repeal and
amendment thereof, the only function given to the Congress by the Constitution

ISSUE: Do they have legal standing?

RULING: YES.Where a veto is claimed to have been made without or in excess of the authority
vested on the President, the issue of an impermissible intrusion of the Executive into the domain
of the Legislature arises. To the extent the powers of Congress are impaired, so is the power of
each member thereof, since his office confers a right to participate in the exercise of the powers of
that institution.

An act of the Executive which injures the institution of Congress causes a DERIVATIVE SUIT,
but nonetheless substantial injury, which can be questioned by any member of Congress. In such
case, any member of Congress can resort to the courts.

It is true that the Constitution provides a mechanism for overriding a veto. Said remedy however
is available only when the presidential veto is based on policy or political considerations. It is NOT
AVAILABLE when the veto is claimed to be ULTRA VIRES. When it is ultra vires, it becomes
the duty of the Court to draw the dividing line where the exercise of executive power ends and the
bounds of legislative jurisdiction begin.