Gonzales v. Macaraig, Jr.

1990
GR 87636

-EN BANC

Facts:
December 16, 1988 Congress passed House Bill No. 19186 (GAB of Fiscal
Year 1989) which eliminated or decreased certain items included in the
proposed budget submitted by the president
December 29, 1988 President signed bill into law (RA 6688) but
vetoed 7 special provisions and Sec 55, a general provision.
February 2, 1989 Senate passed Res. No. 381 Senate as an
institution decided to contest the constitutionality of the veto of
the president of SEC 55 only.
April 11, 1989 this petition was filed
January 19, 1990 filed motion for leave to file and to admit
supplemental petition same issues but included SEC 16 of House Bill
26934 (Gab for FY 1990 or RA 6831)
SEC. 55 disallows the president and heads of several department to
augment any item in the GAB thereby violation CONSTI ART VI SEC 25 (5)
(page 459)
SEC 16 of the GAB of 1990 provides for the same and the reason for
veto remains the same with the additional legal basis of violation of
PD 1177 SEC 44 and 45 as amended by RA 6670 that authorizes the
president and the heads of depts. To use saving to augment any item of
appropriations in the executive branch of government.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the veto by the President of SEC 55 of GAB for FY 1989
and SEC 16 of GAB for FY 1990 is unconstitutional.

HELD:
The veto is CONSTITUTIONAL. Although the petitioners contend that the
veto exceeded the mandate of the line-veto power of the president
because SEC 55 and SEC 16 are provisions the court held that
inappropriate provisions can be treated as items (Henry v. Edwards)
and therefore can be vetoed validly by the president. Furthermore
inappropriate provisions must be struck down because they contravene
the constitution because it limits the power of the executive to
augment appropriations (ART VI SEC 25 PAR 5.)
The provisions are inappropriate because
They do not relate to particular or distinctive
appropriations
Disapproved or reduces items are nowhere to be found on the face
of the bill
It is more of an expression of policy than an appropriation
Court
also
said
that
to
make
the
GAB
veto-proof
would
be logrolling on the part of the legislative the subject matter of
the provisions should be dealt with in separate and complete
legislation but because they are aware that it would be NOT passed in
that manner they attempt hide it in the GAB
If the legislature really believes that the exercise of veto is
really invalid then congress SHOULD resort to their constitutionally
vested power to override the veto. (ART VI SEC 21 PAR 1)
DECISION: Veto UPHELD. Petition DISMISSED