Gonzales v. Macaraig, Jr. 1990

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 à 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 à 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 à 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 exec branch of government (page 460)

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

o    They do not relate to particular or distinctive appropriations

o    Disapproved or reduces items are nowhere to be found on the face of the bill

o    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 à 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.