235 SCRA 506 Political Law Veto Power Part of the Legislative Process

Constitutionality of the Pork Barrel Countrywide Development Fund

This is a consolidation of cases which sought to question the veto authority of the president involving
the General Appropriations Bill of 1994 as well as the constitutionality of the pork barrel. The
Philippine Constitution Association (PHILCONSA) questions the countrywide development fund.
PHILCONSA said that Congress can only allocate funds but they cannot specify the items as to
which those funds would be applied for since that is already the function of the executive.
In G.R. No. 113766, after the vetoing by the president of some provisions of the GAB of 1994,
neither house of congress took steps to override the veto. Instead, Senators Wigberto Taada and
Alberto Romulo sought the issuance of the writs of prohibition and mandamus against Executive
Secretary Teofisto Guingona et al. Taada et al contest the constitutionality of: (1) the veto on four
special provisions added to items in the GAB of 1994 for theArmed Forces of the Philippines (AFP)
and the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH); and (2) the conditions imposed by the
President in the implementation of certain appropriations for the CAFGUs, the DPWH, and the
National Housing Authority (NHA).
ISSUE: Whether or not the Presidents veto is valid.
HELD: In the PHILCONSA petition, the SC ruled that Congress acted within its power and that the
CDF is constitutional. In the Taada petitions the SC dismissed the other petitions and granted the
others.
Veto on special provisions
The president did his veto with certain conditions and compliant to the ruling in Gonzales vs
Macaraig. The president particularly vetoed the debt reduction scheme in the GAA of 1994
commenting that the scheme is already taken cared of by other legislation and may
be more properly addressed by revising the debt policy. He, however did not delete the
P86,323,438,000.00 appropriation therefor. Taada et al averred that the president cannot validly
veto that provision w/o vetoing the amount allotted therefor. The veto of the president herein is
sustained for the vetoed provision is considered inappropriate; in fact the Sc found that such
provision if not vetoed would in effect repeal the Foreign Borrowing Act making the legislation as a
log-rolling legislation.
Veto of provisions for revolving funds of SUCs
The appropriation for State Universities and Colleges (SUCs), the President vetoed special
provisions which authorize the use of income and the creation, operation and maintenance of
revolving funds was likewise vetoed. The reason for the veto is that there were already funds allotted
for the same in the National expenditure Program. Taada et al claimed this as unconstitutional. The
SC ruled that the veto is valid for it is in compliant to the One Fund Policy it avoided double
funding and redundancy.

Veto of provision on 70% (administrative)/30% (contract) ratio for road maintenance

The President vetoed this provision on the basis that it may result to a breach of contractual
obligations. The funds if allotted may result to abandonment of some existing contracts. The SC
ruled that this Special Provision in question is not an inappropriate provision which can be the
subject of a veto. It is not alien to the appropriation for road maintenance, and on the other hand, it
specifies how the said item shall be expended 70% by administrative and 30% by contract. The
1987 Constitution allows the addition by Congress of special provisions, conditions to items in an
expenditure bill, which cannot be vetoed separately from the items to which they relate so long as
they are appropriate in the budgetary sense. The veto herein is then not valid.
Veto of provision on prior approval of Congress for purchase of military equipment
As reason for the veto, the President stated that the said condition and prohibition violate the
Constitutional mandate of non-impairment of contractual obligations, and if allowed, shall effectively
alter the original intent of the AFP Modernization Fund to cover all military equipment deemed
necessary to modernize the AFP. The SC affirmed the veto. Any provision blocking an
administrative action in implementing a law or requiring legislative approval of executive acts must
be incorporated in a separate and substantive bill. Therefore, being inappropriate provisions.
Veto of provision on use of savings to augment AFP pension funds
According to the President, the grant of retirement and separation benefits should be covered by
direct appropriations specifically approved for the purpose pursuant to Section 29(1) of Article VI of
the Constitution. Moreover, he stated that the authority to use savings is lodged in the officials
enumerated in Section 25(5) of Article VI of the Constitution. The SC retained the veto per reasons
provided by the president.
Condition on the deactivation of the CAFGUs
Congress appropriated compensation for the CAFGUs including the payment of separation
benefits. The President declared in his Veto Message that the implementation of this Special
Provision to the item on the CAFGUs shall be subject to prior Presidential approval pursuant to P.D.
No. 1597 and R.A. No. 6758. The SC ruled to retain the veto per reasons provided by the president.
Further, if this provision is allowed the it would only lead to the repeal of said existing laws.
Conditions on the appropriation for the Supreme Court, etc
In his veto message: The said condition is consistent with the Constitutional injunction prescribed
under Section 8, Article IX-B of the Constitutional which states that no elective or appointive public
officer or employee shall receive additional, double, or indirect compensation unless specifically
authorized by law. I am, therefore, confident that the heads of the said offices shall maintain fidelity
to the law and faithfully adhere to the well-established principle on compensation standardization.
Taada et al claim that the conditions imposed by the President violated the independence and fiscal
autonomy of the Supreme court, the Ombudsman, the COA and the CHR. The SC sustained the
veto: In the first place, the conditions questioned by petitioners were placed in the GAB by Congress
itself, not by the President. The Veto Message merely highlighted the Constitutional mandate that

additional or indirect compensation can only be given pursuant to law. In the second place, such
statements are mere reminders that the disbursements of appropriations must be made in
accordance with law. Such statements may, at worse, be treated as superfluities.
Pork Barrel Constitutional
The pork barrel makes the unequal equal. The Congressmen, being representatives of their local
districts know more about the problems in their constituents areas than the national government or
the president for that matter. Hence, with that knowledge, the Congressmen are in a better position
to recommend as to where funds should be allocated.