PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION INC. v.

ENRIQUEZ (1994)
Petition: Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus
Petitioner: Philippine Constitution Association, 16 members of the
Senate,
Respondent: Hon. Salvador Enriquez
Ponencia: Quiason, J.
DOCTRINE: (Standard of care required)
The President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of
Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any
item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from
savings in other items of their respective appropriations.

FACTS:
1. House Bill No. 10900, the General Appropriation Bill of 1994 (GAB
of 1994), was passed and approved by both houses of Congress on
December 17, 1993.
2. It imposed conditions and limitations on certain items of
appropriations in the proposed budget previously submitted by the
President. It also authorized members of Congress to propose and
identify projects in the "pork barrels" allotted to them and to realign
their respective operating budgets.
3. On December 30, 1993, the President signed the bill into law,
making it as Republic Act No. 7663, entitled "AN ACT
APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE OPERATION OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES FROM JANUARY ONE TO
DECEMBER THIRTY ONE, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND NINETYFOUR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES" (GAA of 1994). On the
same day, the President delivered his Presidential Veto Message,
specifying the provisions of the bill he vetoed and on which he
imposed certain conditions.
4 cases questioning the GAB 1994
1.) In G.R. No. 113105, Philippine Constitution Association
(PHILCONSA) et al. prayed for a writ of prohibition to declare as
unconstitutional and void: (a) Article 41 on the Countrywide
Development Fund or pork barrels, the special provision in Article I
entitled Realignment of Allocation for Operational Expenses, (b)
Article 48 on the Appropriation for Debt Service or the amount
appropriated under said Article 48 in excess of the P37.9 B

allocated for the DECS; and (c) the veto of the President of the
Special Provision of Article 48 of the GAA of 1994
2.) In G.R. No. 113174, 16 Senators question: (1) the constitutionality
of the conditions imposed by the President in the items of the GAA
of 1994: (a) for the Supreme Court, (b) Commission on Audit (COA),
(c) Ombudsman, (d) Commission on Human Rights, (CHR), (e)
Citizen Armed Forces Geographical Units (CAFGU's) and (f) State
Universities and Colleges (SUC's); and (2) the constitutionality of
the veto of the special provision in the appropriation for debt
service.

3.) In G.R. No. 113766, Senators Romulo and Taada together with
the Freedom from Debt Coalition, a non-stock domestic corporation,
sued as taxpayers, challenging the constitutionality of the
Presidential veto of the special provision in the appropriations for
debt service and the automatic appropriation of funds therefor.
4.) In G.R. No. 113888, Senators Romulo and Taada contest the
constitutionality of: (1) the veto on four special provisions added to
items in the GAA of 1994 for the Armed Forces of the Philippines
(AFP) and the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH);
and (2) the conditions imposed by the President in the
implementation of certain appropriations for the CAFGU's, the
DPWH, and the National Housing Authority (NHA).

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not petitioners have locus standi
2. Whether or not GAA of 1994 is unconstitutional
a. Countrywide Development Fund / pork barrels (Article 48)
encroachment by legislature on executive power; power of
appropriation is implementation of the law
b. Realignment of Operating Expenses (Special Provision
1) contrary to Article 6 Section 25(5)
c. Highest Priority for Debt Service (Article 48) and not
education in allocation of budget
3. Whether or not the veto of the president on four special provisions
of Article 48 of the GAA 1994 is unconstitutional and void?
a. Provision on debt ceiling

b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.

Funds of State Universities and Colleges (SUCs)

Road Maintenance ratio (70% administrative/ 30% contract)
AFP medicines
Military Equipment
AFP pension funds
Condition on the deactivation of CAGFUs
Conditions on the appropriation for SC, Ombudsman, COA,
CHR

PROVISION:
Article 6 Section 25(5), Article VI of the Constitution. Said section provides:
No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations:
however, the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of
the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law,
be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law
for their respective offices from savings in other items of their
respective appropriations.
GAB 1994 Article 48 (Appropriations for Debt Service) of the GAA of 1994
which provides:

latter case, the acts cause derivative but nonetheless substantial injury
which can be questioned by members of Congress. In the absence of a
claim that the contract in question violated the rights of petitioners or
impermissibly intruded into the domain of the Legislature, petitioners
have no legal standing to institute the instant action in their capacity as
members of Congress.
b. Whether or not GAA of 1994 is unconstitutional
a. Countrywide Development Fund / pork barrels (Article 48)
constitutional; not encroachment of executive power

Special Provisions

The power of appropriation lodged in Congress carries with it the

power to specify the project or activity to be funded under the
appropriation law. It can be as detailed and as broad as Congress
wants it to be.
The CDF is explicit that it shall be used "for infrastructure,
purchase of ambulances and computers and other priority
projects and activities and credit facilities to qualified
beneficiaries"
It was Congress itself that determined the purposes for the
appropriation. Executive function under the CDF involves
implementation of the priority projects specified in the law. The
authority given to the members of Congress is only to propose
and identify projects to be implemented by the President.
Hence, under Article 48 of the GAA of 1994, if the proposed
projects qualify for funding under the CDF, it is the President who
shall implement them. In short, the proposals and identifications
made by the members of Congress are merely recommendatory.

1.Use of the Fund. The appropriation authorized herein shall be used for
payment of principal and interest of foreign and domestic indebtedness;
PROVIDED, That any payment in excess of the amount herein appropriated
shall be subject to the approval of the President of the Philippines with the
concurrence of the Congress of the Philippines; PROVIDED, FURTHER,
That in no case shall this fund be used to pay for the liabilities of the Central
Bank Board of Liquidators.

2.Reporting Requirement. The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas and the

Department of Finance shall submit a quarterly report of actual foreign and
domestic debt service payments to the House Committee on Appropriations
and Senate Finance Committee within one (1) month after each quarter
(GAA of 1944, pp. 1266).

The members only determine the necessity of the realignment of

the savings in the allotments for their operating expenses but it is
the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives who shall approve the realignment.

c.

Highest Priority for Debt Service (Article 48) constitutional;

exercises its power to respond to the imperatives of the national
interest and for the attainment of other state policies or objectives.

The constitutional provision which directs the State shall assign

the highest budgetary priority to education is merely directory.

RULING + RATIO

b. Realignment of Operating Expenses (Special Provision 1)

1. Yes. Petitioners have locus standi

The Court held that the members of Congress have the legal standing
to question the validity of acts of the Executive which injures them in
their person or the institution of Congress to which they belong. In the

As stated in Guingona, Jr. v. Carague: While it is true that under

Section 5(5), Article XIV of the Constitution, Congress is
mandated to assign the highest budgetary priority to education it
does not thereby follow that Congress is deprived of its power to
respond to the imperatives of the national interest and for the
attainment of other state policies or objectives.

c. Whether or not the veto of the president on four special

provisions of Article 48 of the GAA 1994 is unconstitutional
and void?
Any provision which does not relate to any particular item, or which
extends in its operation beyond an item of appropriation, is
considered an inappropriate provision which can be vetoed
separately from an item.
Any provision blocking an administrative action in implementing a
law requiring legislative approval of executive acts must be
incorporated in a separate substantive bill.
a. Provision on debt ceiling VOID
Special Provision on Debt Ceiling Congress provided for a
debt-ceiling. Vetoed by the Pres. w/o vetoing the entire
appropriation for debt service. The said provisions are germane
to & have direct relation w/ debt service. They are appropriate
provisions & cannot be vetoed w/o vetoing the entire
item/appropriation.
b. Funds of State Universities and Colleges (SUCs) - VALID
Special Provision on Revolving Funds for SCUs said
provision allows for the use of income & creation of revolving
fund for SCUs. Provision for Western Visayas State 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.
c.

Road Maintenance ratio (70% administrative/ 30% contract)

- VOID

Special Provision on Road Maintenance Congress specified

30% ratio for works for maintenance of roads be contracted
according to guidelines set forth by DPWH. Vetoed by the Pres.

w/o vetoing the entire appropriation. It is not an inappropriate

provision; it is not alien to the subj. of road maintenance &
cannot be veoted w/o vetoing the entire appropriation.
d. AFP medicines - VOID
Special Provision on AFP Medicines - Being directly related to
and inseparable from the appropriation item on purchases of
medicines by the AFP, the special provision cannot be vetoed
by the President without also vetoing the said item.
e. Military Equipment VALID
Special Provision on Purchase of Military Equip. AFP
modernization, prior approval of Congress required before
release of modernization funds. It is the so-called legislative
veto. Any prov. blocking an admin. action in implementing a law
or requiring legislative approval must be subj. of a separate law.
f.

AFP pension funds- VALID

Special Provision on Use of Savings for AFP Pensions allows

Chief of Staff to augment pension funds through the use of
savings. According to the Constitution, only the Pres. may
exercise such power pursuant to a specific law. Properly
vetoed. VETO VALID.
g. Condition on the deactivation of CAGFUs VALID
Special Provision on Conditions for de-activation of CAFGUs
use of special fund for 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
provision in an appropriation act cannot be used to
repeal/amend existing laws.
h. Conditions on the appropriation for SC, Ombudsman, COA,
CHR - VALID
By setting guidelines or conditions in his veto, the President is
simply exercising his constitutional duty to implement the laws
faithfully.