2 BENGZON VS. DRILON G.R.

103524 April 15, 1992

208 SCRA 133
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It turns out that PD 644 which repealed RA 1797 never became a valid law absent its publication, thus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 of 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protections for the Judiciary be repealed.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.

Case Digest: Bengzon vs. Drilon

G.R. No. 103524

15 April 1992

FACTS:

The petitioners are retired Justices of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals who
are currently receiving monthly pensions under R.A. No. 910 as amended by R.A.
No. 1797. Section 3-A, which authorizes said pensions, of R.A. No. 1797 was
repealed by President Marcos. The legislature saw the need to re-enact said R.A.s to
restore said retirement pensions and privilege. President Aquino, however, vetoed
House Bill No. 16297 as well as portions of Section 1 and the entire Section 4 of the
Special Provisions for the Supreme Court of the Philippines and the Lower Courts
(GAA of FY 1992).

ISSUES:
1.
Whether the President may veto certain provisions of the General
Appropriatons Act; and

2.
Whether the questioned veto impairs the Fiscal Autonomy guaranteed to the
Judiciary

RULING:

1.
The act of the Executive in vetoing the particular provisions is an exercise of a
constitutionally vested power. But even as the Constitution grants the power, it also
provides limitations to its exercise. The Executive must veto a bill in its entirety or
not at all. He or she is, therefore, compelled to approve into law the entire bill,
including its undesirable parts. It is for this reason that the Constitution has wisely
provided the item veto power to avoid inexpedient riders from being attached to
an indispensable appropriation or revenue measure. What was done by the
President was the vetoing of a provision and not an item.

2.
Section 3, Article VIII of the Constitution provides for the Fiscal Autonomy of
the Judiciary. The veto of the specific provisions in the GAA is tantamount to
dictating to the Judiciary how its funds should be utilized, which is clearly repugnant
to fiscal autonomy. The freedom of the Chief Justice to make adjustments in the
utilization of the funds appropriated for the expenditures of the judiciary, including
the use of any savings from any particular item to cover deficits or shortages in
other items of the judiciary is withheld. Pursuant to the Constitutional mandate, the
Judiciary must enjoy freedom in law. It knows its priorities just as it is aware of the
fiscal restraints. The Chief Justice must be given a free hand on how to augment
appropriations where augmentation is needed, which is provided for in Section
25(5), Article VI of the Constitution.2