BENGZON VS.

DRILON
G.R. 103524 April 15, 1992 208 SCRA 133
Gutierrez, J.:
FACTS:
Petitioners are retired justices of the Supreme Court and Court of
Appeals who are currently receiving pensions under RA 910 as
amended by RA 1797. President Marcos issued a decree repealing
section 3-A of RA 1797 which authorized the adjustment of the pension
of retired justices and officers and enlisted members of the AFP. PD
1638 was eventually issued by Marcos which provided for the
automatic readjustment of the pension of officers and enlisted men
was restored, while that of the retired justices was not. RA 1797 was
restored through HB 16297 in 1990. When her advisers gave the wrong
information that the questioned provisions in 1992 GAA were an
attempt to overcome her earlier veto in 1990, President Aquino issued
the veto now challenged in this petition.
It turns out that PD 644 which repealed RA 1797 never became a valid
law absent its publication, thus there was no law. It follows that RA
1797 was still in effect and HB 16297 was superfluous because it tried
to restore benefits which were never taken away validly. The veto of HB
16297 did not also produce any effect.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the veto of the President of certain provisions in the
GAA of FY 1992 relating to the payment of the adjusted pensions of
retired Justices is constitutional or valid.
HELD:
The veto of these specific provisions in the GAA is tantamount to
dictating to the Judiciary ot its funds should be utilized, which is clearly
repugnant to fiscal autonomy. Pursuant to constitutional mandate, the
Judiciary must enjoy freedom in the disposition of the funds allocated
to it in the appropriations law.
Any argument which seeks to remove special privileges given by law to
former Justices on the ground that there should be no grant of distinct
privileges or preferential treatment to retired Justices ignores these
provisions of the Constitution and in effect asks that these
Constitutional provisions on special protections for the Judiciary be
repealed.
The petition is granted and the questioned veto is illegal and the
provisions of 1992 GAA are declared valid and subsisting.