Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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.
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
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.
c.
RULING + RATIO