Bengzon v. Drilon (G.R. No.

103524, April 15, 1992)

FACTS:
1) June 20, 1953: R.A.. 910 was enacted.
This act provides for the retirement pensions of justices of the SC and CA who have:
a) rendered at least 20 years service either in the Judiciary or in any other branch of the Government; or
b) attained the age of 70 years; or
c) resign by reason of incapacity to discharge the duties of the office
The retired Justice shall receive during the residue of his natural life the salary which he was receiving at the
time of his retirement or resignation.
2) June 21, 1957: Republic Act No. 910 was amended by R.A. 1797 which provided:
Sec 3-A. In case the salary of Justices of the SC or of the CA is increased or decreased, such increased or
decreased salary shall, for purposes of this Act, be deemed to be the salary or the retirement pension which
a Justice who as of June 12, 1957 had ceased to be such to accept another position in the Government or
who retired was receiving at the time of his cessation in office. Provided, that any benefits that have already
accrued prior to such increase or decrease shall not be affected thereby.
The Constitutional Commissions were also given the same retirement benefits under Republic Act No. 1568, as
amended by R.A. 3595.
On November 12, 1974, President Marcos also signed P.D. 578, extending the similar retirement benefits of RA
1797 and RA. 3595 to the members of the Armed Forces.
3) January 25, 1975 PD 644 was enacted, which repealed RA 1797 and 3595.
In effect, the provision which authorized the adjustment of the pension of the retired Justices of the SC, CA
Chairman and members of the Constitutional Commissions and the officers and enlisted members of the Armed
Forces to the prevailing rates of salaries was repealed.
4) The President re-enacted the said readjustment to the members of the Armed Forces.
Presidential Decree 1638: Automatic readjustment of the retirement pension of officers and enlisted men was
restored by Marcos.
Presidential Decree 1909: Automatic readjustment of the pensions of members of the Armed Forces who have
retired prior to September 10, 1979
THUS, while the adjustment of the retirement pensions for members of the Armed Forces who number in the
tens of thousands was restored, that of the retired Justices of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals who are only
a handful and fairly advanced in years, was not.
Although the Justices are still receiving monthly pensions (not from the said automatic readjustment act), the
Congress still found the said re-enactment for the members of the Armed Forces only as discriminatory against the
members of Judiciary and Constitutional Commissions. Thus, the Congress approved in 1990 a bill for the
reenactment of the repealed provisions of RA 1797 and RA 3595. Congress was under the impression that PD 644
became law after it was published in the Official Gazette on April 7, 1977. Aquino vetoed the said bill (House Bill
No. 16297) on July 11, 1990 on the ground that "it would erode the very foundation of the Government's

collective effort to adhere faithfully to and enforce strictly the policy on standardization of compensation as
articulated in Republic Act No. 6758 known as Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989." She
further said that "the Government should not grant distinct privileges to select group of officials whose
retirement benefits under existing laws already enjoy preferential treatment over those of the vast majority
of our civil service servants."
Prior to the instant petition, however, some retired CA justices filed a letter/petition dated April 22, 1991
which we treated as Administrative Matter No. 91-8-225-CA for a readjustment of their monthly pensions in
accordance with RA 1797. They reasoned out that PD 644 repealing RA 1797 did not become law as there was no
valid publication pursuant to Taada v. Tuvera. PD 644 promulgated on January 24, 1975 appeared for the first time
only in the supplemental issue of the Official Gazette, purportedly dated April 4, 1977 but published only on
September 5, 1983. Since PD 644 has no binding force and effect of law, it therefore did not repeal RA 1797. The
Court, in a resolution, favorably granted the request.
The Congress, pursuant to the resolution, included in the General Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 1992 certain
appropriations for the Judiciary intended for the payment of the adjusted pension rates due to the retired Justices of
the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.
The President however vetoed once again the provisions pursuant to the appropriations for the payment
of the retired Justices of the SC and the CA The reason given for the veto of said provisions is that "the
resolution of this Honorable Court in Administrative Matter No. 91-8-225-CA pursuant to which the
appropriations for the payment of the retired Justices of the SC and the CA have been enacted effectively
nullified the veto of the President on House Bill No. 16297, the bill which provided for the automatic increase
in the retirement pensions of the Justices of the SC and the CA and chairmen of the Constitutional
Commissions by re-enacting RA. 1797 and RA. 3595. The President's veto of the aforesaid provisions was
further justified by reiterating the earlier reasons for vetoing House Bill No. 16297: "they would erode the
very foundation of our collective effort to adhere faithfully to and enforce strictly the policy and
standardization of compensation. We should not permit the grant of distinct privileges to select group of
officials whose retirement pensions under existing laws already enjoy preferential treatment over those of
the vast majority of our civil servants."
ISSUE: WON the President can veto the said items/provisions in the General Appropriations Act.
HELD: NO. The Executive believed that the items in the 1992 Appropriations Act were being vetoed when, in fact, the
veto struck something else.
What were really vetoed are:
(1) Republic Act No. 1797 enacted as early as June 21, 1957; and
(2) The Resolution of the Supreme Court dated November 28, 1991 in Administrative Matter No. 91-8-225-CA.

We need no lengthy justifications or citations of authorities to declare that no President may veto the provisions of a
law enacted thirty-five (35) years before his or her term of office. Neither may the President set aside or reverse a
final and executory judgment of this Court through the exercise of the veto power.
A few background facts may be reiterated to fully explain the unhappy situation.

Republic Act No. 1797 provided for the adjustment of pensions of retired Justices which privilege was extended to
retired members of Constitutional Commissions by Republic Act No. 3595.
On January 25, 1975, President Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 644 which repealed Republic Acts 1797 and
3595. Subsequently, automatic readjustment of pensions for retired Armed Forces officers and men was
surreptitiously restored through Presidential Decree Nos. 1638 and 1909.
It was the impression that Presidential Decree No. 644 had reduced the pensions of Justices and Constitutional
Commissioners which led Congress to restore the repealed provisions through House Bill No. 16297 in 1990. When
her finance and budget advisers gave the wrong information that the questioned provisions in the 1992 General
Appropriations Act were simply an attempt to overcome her earlier 1990 veto, she issued the veto now challenged in
this petition.
It turns out, however, that P.D. No. 644 never became valid law. If P.D. No. 644 was not law, it follows that Rep. Act
No. 1797 was not repealed and continues to be effective up to the present. In the same way that it was enforced from
1951 to 1975, so should it be enforced today.
House Bill No. 16297 was superfluous as it tried to restore benefits which were never taken away validly. The veto of
House Bill No. 16297 in 1991 did not also produce any effect. Both were based on erroneous and non-existent
premises.
From the foregoing discussion, it can be seen that when the President vetoed certain provisions of the 1992 General
Appropriations Act, she was actually vetoing Republic Act No. 1797 which, of course, is beyond her power to
accomplish.
Presidential Decree No. 644 which purportedly repealed Republic Act No. 1717 never achieved that purpose
because it was not properly published. It never became a law.
The challenged veto has far-reaching implications which the Court can not countenance as they undermine the
principle of separation of powers. The Executive has no authority to set aside and overrule a decision of the Supreme
Court.
Neither may the veto power of the President be exercised as a means of repealing RA 1797. This is arrogating unto
the Presidency legislative powers which are beyond its authority. The President has no power to enact or amend
statutes promulgated by her predecessors much less to repeal existing laws. The President's power is merely to
execute the laws as passed by Congress.