PASCUAL v.

SECRETARY of PUBLIC WORKS

G.R. No. L-10405
DIGEST BY: Belle Cabal
Submitted: November 2016

FACTS OF THE CASE

This case involves R.A. 920, which allocates P 85, 000.00 for the construction,
reconstruction, repair, extension and improvement of Pasig feeder road terminals.
However, at the time of passage, said feeder roads belonged to Zulueta, who was at
that time a senator, and passed through his subdivision. Zulueta offered to donate
said roads to the Municipality of Pasig, Rizal through a letter. The offer was accepted
but no deed of donation was executed thereafter. At the time of the passage of R.A.
920, the roads remained private. Congress passed R.A. 920 under the impression
that the roads were public. In an effort to legally appropriate the lands, Zulueta
executed a deed of donation for the lands in favor of the Republic of the Philippines
5 months after the passing of the Act. Said donation partook in the nature of a
contract with the Government since it was executed with onerous condition: The
within donation is hereby made upon the condition that the Government of the
Republic of the Philippines will use the parcels of land hereby donated for street
purposes only and for no other purposes whatsoever; it being expressly understood
that should the Government of the Republic of the Philippines violate the condition
hereby imposed upon it, the title to the land hereby donated shall, upon such
violation, ipso facto revert to the DONOR, JOSE C. ZULUETA.
Such contracts were unconstitutional, violating the fundamental provision
that prohibits members of Congress from directly or indirectly being financially
interested in any contract of the Government. Governor of Rizal, Pascual, initiated
the action to deem the deed of donation unconstitutional and void ab inito. He was
denied for having no locus standi and has stated no cause of action. The case at
hand is an appeal.
ISSUE/S

W/N the court had jurisdiction over the issue on tax and appropriation
W/N R.A. 920 is constitutional

YES. It is the Courts vested right by the Constitution.

NO. Because the allotment of P85, 000.00 for repairs and development was
clearly for the benefit of Zulueta. The land of the subdivision embracing such
roads will increase in value because of such improvements. The rule is set
forth in Corpus Juris Secundum in the following language:

HELD

"In accordance with the rule that the taxing power must be exercised for
public purposes only, discussed supra sec. 14, money raised by taxation can
be expanded only for public purposes and not for the advantage of private
individuals." (85 C.J.S. pp. 645-646; italics supplied.)
Explaining the reason underlying said rule, Corpus Juris Secundum states:

"Generally, under the express or implied provisions of the constitution, public

funds may be used for a public purpose. The right of the legislature to
appropriate funds is correlative with its right to tax, under constitutional
provisions against taxation except for public purposes and prohibiting the
collection of a tax for one purpose and the devotion thereof to another
purpose, no appropriation of state funds can be made for other than a public
purpose. . .
"The test of the constitutionality of a statute requiring the use of public funds
is whether the statute is designed to promote the public interests, as opposed
to the furtherance of the advantage of individuals, although each advantage
to individuals might incidentally serve the public. . . ."

IMPORTANT LAWS/STATUTES/PROVISIONS/SECTIONS

ARTICLE 6, SECTION 14 of the Philippine Constitution

No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may personally
appear as counsel before any court of justice or before the Electoral
Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies. Neither
shall he, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any contract
with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the
Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof,
including any government-owned or controlled corporation, or its
subsidiary, during his term of office. He shall not intervene in any
matter before any office of the Government for his pecuniary benefit or
where he may be called upon to act on account of his office.

ARTICLE 8, SECTION 5 (2) (a) of the Philippine Constitution

The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as
the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders
of lower courts in:
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax impost,
assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in the relation
thereto.