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  Section 3-A, which authorizes said pensions, of R.A. No. 1797 was repealed by President Marcos.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. 1.       Whether the President may veto certain provisions of the General Appropriatons Act; and
2. 2.       Whether the questioned veto impairs the Fiscal Autonomy guaranteed to the Judiciary

RULING:

1. 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. 
   
3. 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.