EXECUTIVE IMPOUNDMENT Art VI Sec27, 1987 v Art VI Neptali Gonzales vs Macaraig

Sec20,1935 Consti
Political Law – Veto Power – Inappropriate Provision in an
Bolinao Electronics Corporation vs Brigido Valencia Appropriation Bill
11 SCRA 486 – Political Law – Veto Power – Condition Attached to Facts: Gonzales, together w/ 22 other senators, assailed the
an Item constitutionality of Cory’s veto of Section 55 of the 1989
Facts: Bolinao Electronics Corporation was the co-owner and a co- Appropriations Bill (Sec 55 FY ’89, and subsequently of its
petitioner of Chronicle Broadcasting Network, Inc. (CBN) and counterpart Section 16 of the 1990 Appropriations Bill (Sec 16 FY
Montserrat Broadcasting System Inc. They operate and own ’90). Gonzalez averred the following: (1) the President’s line-veto
television (channel 9) and radio stations in the Philippines. They
power as regards appropriation bills is limited to item/s and does
were summoned by Brigido Valencia, then Secretary of
Communications, for operating even after their permit has not cover provision/s; therefore, she exceeded her authority when
expired. Valencia claimed that because of CBN’s continued she vetoed Section 55 (FY ’89) and Section 16 (FY ’90) which are
operation sans license and their continuing operation had caused provision; (2) when the President objects to a provision of an
damages to his department. appropriation bill, she cannot exercise the item-veto power but
ISSUE: Whether or not Valencia is entitled to claim for damages. should veto the entire bill; (3) the item-veto power does not carry
with it the power to strike out conditions or restrictions for that
HELD: The SC ruled in the negative. Valencia failed to show that
would be legislation, in violation of the doctrine of separation of
any right of his has been violated by the refusal of CBN to cease
operation. Further, the SC noted that as the records show, the powers; and (4) the power of augmentation in Article VI, Section
appropriation to operate the Philippine Broadcasting Service as 25 [5] of the 1987 Constitution, has to be provided for by law and,
approved by Congress and incorporated in the 1962-1963 Budget therefore, Congress is also vested with the prerogative to impose
of the Republic of the Philippines does not allow appropriations restrictions on the exercise of that power.
for TV stations particularly in Luzon. Hence, since there was no
appropriation allotted then there can be no damage; and if there ISSUE: Whether or not the President exceeded the item-veto
are expenditures made by Valencia’s department they are in fact in power accorded by the Constitution. Or differently put, has the
violation of the law and they cannot claim damages therefrom. President the power to veto `provisions’ of an Appropriations Bill.
And even if it is shown that the then president vetoed this
provision of the Budget Act, such veto is illegal because he may not HELD: SC ruled that Congress cannot include in a general
legally veto a condition attached to an appropriation or item in the appropriations bill matters that should be more properly enacted
appropriation bill.
in separate legislation, and if it does that, the inappropriate
Note: This ruling, that the executive’s veto power does not carry provisions inserted by it must be treated as “item,” which can be
with it the power to strike out conditions or restrictions, has been vetoed by the President in the exercise of his item-veto power. The
adhered to in subsequent cases. If the veto is unconstitutional, it SC went one step further and rules that even assuming arguendo
follows that the same produced no effect whatsoever; and the
that “provisions” are beyond the executive power to veto, and
restriction imposed by the appropriation bill, therefore, remains
Section 55 (FY ’89) and Section 16 (FY ’90) were not “provisions”
in the budgetary sense of the term, they are “inappropriate government; among such obligations is the allotment for the
provisions” that should be treated as “items” for the purpose of the pensions of retired justices of the judiciary.
President’s veto power.
However, President Aquino again vetoed the said lines which
Cesar Bengzon vs Franklin Drilon provided for the pensions of the retired justices in the judiciary in
the GAB. She explained that that portion of the GAB is already
208 SCRA 133 – Political Law – Veto Power of the President
deemed vetoed when she vetoed H.B. 16297.
In 1990, Congress sought to reenact some old laws (i.e. Republic
This prompted Cesar Bengzon and several other retired judges
Act No. 1797) that were “repealed” during the time of former
and justices to question the constitutionality of the veto made by
President Ferdinand Marcos. These old laws provided certain
the President. The President was represented by then Executive
retirement benefits to retired judges, justices, and members of the
Secretary Franklin Drilon.
constitutional commissions. Congress felt a need to restore these
laws in order to standardize retirement benefits among ISSUE: Whether or not the veto of the President on that portion of
government officials. However, President Corazon Aquino vetoed the General Appropriations bill is constitutional.
the bill (House Bill No. 16297) on the ground that the law should
HELD: No. The Justices of the Court have vested rights to the
not give preferential treatment to certain or select government
accrued pension that is due to them in accordance to Republic Act
officials.
1797 which was never repealed. The president has no power to
Meanwhile, a group of retired judges and justices filed a petition set aside and override the decision of the Supreme Court neither
with the Supreme Court asking the court to readjust their does the president have the power to enact or amend statutes
pensions. They pointed out that RA 1797 was never repealed (by promulgated by her predecessors much less to the repeal of
P.D. No. 644) because the said PD was one of those unpublished existing laws.
PDs which were subject of the case of Tañada v. Tuvera. Hence, the
The Supreme Court also explained that the veto is unconstitutional
repealing law never existed due to non publication and in effect,
since the power of the president to disapprove any item or items
RA 1797 was never repealed. The Supreme Court then readjusted
in the appropriations bill does not grant the authority to veto part
their pensions.
of an item and to approve the remaining portion of said item. It
Congress took notice of the readjustment and son in the General appears that in the same item, the Presidents vetoed some portion
Appropriations Bill (GAB) for 1992, Congress allotted additional of it and retained the others. This cannot be done. The rule is: the
budget for pensions of retired justices. Congress however did the Executive must veto a bill in its entirety or not at all; the Executive
allotment in the following manner: Congress made an item must veto an entire line item in its entirety or not at all. In this
entitled: “General Fund Adjustment”; included therein are case, the president did not veto the entire line item of the general
allotments to unavoidable obligations in different brances of the adjustment fund. She merely vetoed the portion which pertained
to the pensions of the justices but did not veto the other items The day following the publication of the foregoing statement, the
covering obligations to the other departments of the government. petitioner received a letter, where she is informed that she needs
to appear before the Commisioner of Civil Service to prove her
THE PRESIDENT statements otherwise she may be suspended or removed from
Singular Executive office.

At the appointed time, the petitioner, accompanied by her counsel,

CARMEN PLANAS v. JOSE GIL appeared at the office of the respondent and delivered to him a
letter, Annex B, in which she voiced objection to the authority of
Facts: Petitioner , a member of the municipal board of the City of the respondent to conduct the investigation. The respondent
Manila, criticized the acts of certain government officials in Commissioner did not desist from proceeding with the
connection with the general election for Assemblymen held on investigation, but announced before adjourning the hearing of
November 8, 1938 in one of the local dailies. The statement as November 22nd that he would decide the question raised as to his
published in the issue of La Vanguardia of November 17, 1938, jurisdiction on November 26, 1938.
included the following statements:
It was at this state of the investigation that the petitioner filed in
“… In Manila, the opposition should have won the November 8 this court her original petition for prohibition of November 25,
elections, but lost instead because of a disastrous 1938, in which she at the same time prayed for the issuance of a
division due to people who commercialized their candidacies. writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the respondent
"The Constitution prohibits the reelection of the President precisel commisioner from continuing with the investigation.
y so that the President maydevote all his time to the administratio
n of public affairs for the welfare of the people, but thePresident w Issues:
as the first to play politics. Publicly expressing his preference for 1. WON the courts have jurisdiction over this case
candidates of his liking; and with the President all other officials of 2. WON the president has the power to order the
the government also moved, taking part in electoral campaigns. investigation
"With the government machinery feverishly functioning to flatten t 3. WON the investigation is in accordance with the law
he opposition and preventcandidates supported by the people fro
m going to the National Assembly, and with frauds and violations Ratio/Holding: The petition is hereby dismissed, with costs
of all rules of the civil service to push to victory the candidates of against the petitioner.
the Nacionalista Party and the administration, all constructive
opposition in the country is useless ... 1. Yes.
"… It is reasonable to believe
that the President is from this moment paving the way for hisreele In the present case, the President is not a party to the proceeding.
ction. It is to be feared that the new National Assembly will change The Commissioner of Civil Service is the party respondent and the
this wise provision of our Constitution to permit the reelection of theory is advanced by the Government that because an
President Manuel L. Quezon." investigation undertaken by him is directed by authority of the
President of the Philippines, this court has no jurisdiction over the
present proceedings instituted by the petitioner, Carmen
Planas. The argument is farfetched.A mere plea that a subordinate sec. 1, last clause.) In thefulfillment of this duty which he cannot ev
officer of the government is acting under orders from the ChiefExe ade, he is granted specific and express powers andfunctions. (Art.
cutive may be an important averment, but is neither decisive nor c VII, sec. 11.) In addition to these specific and express powers and f
onclusive upon this court.Like the dignity of his high office, the rel unctions, hemay also exercise those necessarily implied and includ
ative immunity of the Chief Executive from judicialinterference is ed in them. (Myers vs. United States [1926]) The National
not in the nature of a sovereign passport for all the subordinate off Assembly may not enact laws which either expressly or impliedly
icials andemployees of the Executive Department to the extent tha diminish the authority conferred upon the President of the
t at the mere invocation of the authoritythat it purports the jurisdi Constitution. (Cf. Concepcion vs. Paredes
ction of this court to inquire into the validity or legality of an execu [1921]) The Constitutionprovides that the President "shall have co
tiveorder is necessarily abated or suspended. ntrol of all the executive departments, bureaus, andoffices" (Art. VI
I, sec. 11 [1], first clause) and shall "exercise general supervision o
Not ver all localgovernments as may be provided by law" (Ibid, second
infrequently, "the writ is granted, where it is necessary for the ord clause). This power of control andsupervision is an important cons
erly administration of justice,or to prevent the use of the strong ar titutional grant. The President in the exercise of the executivepow
m of the law in an oppressive or vindictive manner, or amultiplicit er under the Constitution may act through the heads of the executi
y of actions." (Dimayuga and Fajardo vs. Fernandez [1922]) This ve departments.
court, therefore, has jurisdiction over the instant proceedings and
will accordingly proceed to determine the merits of the present Independently of any statutory provision authorizing the
controversy. President to conduct an investigation of the nature involved in this
proceeding, and in view of the nature and character of the
2. Yes. executive authority with which the President of the Philippines is
invested, the constitutional grant to him of power to exercisegener
It is not denied that the President did authorize the issuance of the al supervision over all local governments and to take care that the
order, but it is contended "that the said investigation with a view laws be faithfullyexecuted must be construed to authorize him to o
to petitioner's suspension or removal is against Article VII, sec. 11 rder an investigation of the act or conduct, ofthe petitioner herein.
(1) of the Constitution of the Philippines and is not warranted by Supervision is not a meaningless thing. It is an active power. It is c
any statutory provision." (Par. XV [b], amended petition.) It, ertainlynot without limitation, but it at least implies authority to in
therefore, becomes necessary to inquire into the constitutional quire into facts and conditions in orderto render the power real an
and legal authority of the President to order the investigation d effective. If supervision is to be conscientious and rational, and
which has given rise to the present controversy. not automatic and brutal, it must be founded upon a knowledge of
actual facts and conditions disclosed after careful study and
A perusal of our Constitution will show investigation.
that extensive authority over the public service is granted thePresi
dent of the Philippines. Article VII of the Constitution begins in its Viewed from the totality of powers conferred upon the Chief
section 1 with thedeclaration that "The Executive power shall be v Executive by our Constitution, we should be reluctant to yield to
ested in a President of the Philippines." Allexecutive authority is th the proposition that the President of the Philippines who is
us vested in him, and upon him devolves the constitutional duty of endowed with broad and extraordinary powers by our
seeing that the laws are "faithfully executed." (Art. VIII, sec. 11, sub Constitution, and who is expected to govern with a firm and steady
hand without vexatious or embarrassing interference and much
less dictation from any source, is yet devoid of the power to order The interest of the public service requires that these charges be
the investigation of the petitioner in this case. We should avoid investigated, so that, if found to be true, appropriate action may be
that result. taken against the parties alleged to have been guilty of illegal acts,
and if found untrue and made without justifiable motives, the
The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention show that the party making them may be proceeded against in accordance with
grant of the supervisory authority to Chief Executive in this regard section 2440, in connection, with section, 2078, of the Revised
was in the nature of a compromise resulting from the conflict of Administrative Code." Assuming that this is not one of the grounds
views in that body, mainly between the historical view which provided by law for which the petitioner may be investigated
recognizes the right of local self-government (People ex rel. Le Roy administratively (sec. 2078, Rev. Adm. Code), there is weight in the
vs. Hurlbut [1871]) and the legal theory which sanctions the argument that the investigation would still be in order
possession by the state of absolute control over local governments if for no other purpose than to cause a full and honest disclosure of
(Booten vs. Pinson, all the facts sothat, if found proper and justified, appropriate actio
[1915]). The result was the recognition ofthe power of supervision n may be taken against the parties alleged tohave been guilty of th
and all its implications and the rejection of what otherwise would e illegal acts charged. The enforcement of the law and the
be animperium in, imperio to the detriment of a strong national go maintenance of peace and order are primarily an executive
vernment. obligation. The declaration that the President should "takecare tha
t the laws be faithfully executed" is more an imposition of an oblig
Apart from the constitutional aspect, we find that section 64 of the ation than aconferment of power. His oath requires him to "faithful
Administrative Code of 1917 provides as follows: ly and conscientiously fulfill" his duties asPresident, "preserve and
defend" the Constitution and "execute" the law. This duty of theEx
"In addition to his general supervisory authority, the Governor- ecutive to see that the laws be faithfully executed is not limited to t
General (President) shall have such specific powers and duties as he enforcement oflegislative acts or the express terms of the Const
are expressly conferred or imposed on him by law and also, in itution but also includes the due enforcement ofrights, duties, obli
particular, the powers and duties set forth in this chapter. gations, prerogatives and immunities growing out of the Constituti
"Among such special powers and duties shall be: on itself andof the protection implied by the nature of the governm
******* ent under the Constitution. (Cunningham vs. Neagle)
"(c) To order, when in his opinion the good of the public service so
requires, an investigation of any action or the conduct of any We are vigilantly alive to the necessity of maintaining and protecti
person in the Government service, and in connection therewith to ng the constitutional guarantyof freedom of speech and of the pres
designate the official, committee, or person by whom such s, no less than the right of assembly and petition which,according t
investigation shall be conducted." o Stimson (The American Constitution As It Protects Private Rights
This provision of the law, in existence before the taking effect of , 152), is its originrather than its derivation. In the present case, ho
the Constitution, still subsists. It is not inconsistent with the wever, the petitioner is not denied the right, nor is shebeing invest
Constitution and has not been abrogated or repealed by the igated because she had exercised that right. She has a perfect right
National Assembly. (See sec. 2, Art. XV, Constitution.) to criticize theGovernment, its administration, its policies and offic
ials, but she may not, on the plea of freedom ofspeech and of the pr
3. Yes. ess, impute violations of law and the commission of frauds and the
reafter fold herarms and decline to face an investigation conducte the court has no jurisdiction to review the orders of the Chief
d to elicit the truth or falsity of the charges formulatedby her. Othe Executive which are of purely administrative in character.
rwise, the guarantee which, in the language of Wendell Phillips, is " ISSUE: Whether or not the SC has jurisdiction to review orders
at once the instrument,and the guarantee, and the bright consumm
issued by the President.
ate flower of all liberty" would degenerate into an unbridledlicens
e, and render the Government powerless to act. HELD: The acts of the Chief Executive performed within the limits
of his jurisdiction are his official acts and courts will neither direct
Carmen Planas vs Jose Gil nor restrain executive action in such cases. The rule is non-
interference. But from this legal premise, it does not necessarily
67 Phil. 62 – Political Law – Separation of Powers – Rule of Non- follow that the SC is precluded from making an inquiry into the
Interference validity or constitutionality of his acts when these are properly
challenged in an appropriate legal proceeding. The classical
Facts: In November 1938, Carmen Planas, then a municipal board separation of governmental powers viewed in the light of political
member of Manila, published a statement criticizing the acts of philosophy is a relative theory of government. There is more
certain government officials including Pres. Manuel Quezon in a truism and actuality in interdependence than in independence and
newspaper. The following morning, she received a letter from separation of powers.
Jorge Vargas (Secretary to the President) by order of the president In the present case, the President is not a party to the proceeding.
directing her to report before the Civil Service Commission (CSC). He is neither compelled nor restrained to act in a particular way.
She was directed to explain and prove her allegations. The CSC is the party respondent and the theory is advanced by the
She appeared before the CSC but she questioned the jurisdiction of Sol-Gen that because an investigation undertaken by him is
the CSC over the matter. She said that as an elective official, she is directed by authority of the President of the Philippines, the SC has
accountable for her political acts to her constituency alone, unless no jurisdiction over the present proceedings instituted by Planas.
such acts constitute offenses punishable under our penal laws, and The argument is farfetched. A mere plea that a subordinate officer
not to executive officials belonging to a party opposed to that to of the government is acting under orders from the Chief Executive
which petitioner is affiliated. Further, she contends that her may be an important averment, but is neither decisive nor
statement in the newspaper was made by her as a private citizen conclusive upon this court. Like the dignity of his high office, the
and in the exercise of her right to discuss freely political questions relative immunity of the Chief Executive from judicial interference
and cannot properly be the subject of an administrative is not in the nature of a sovereign passport for all the subordinate
investigation; that the issue is only cognizable by courts of justice official and employees of the executive Department to the extent
in case the contents of said statement infringe any provision of that at the mere invocation of the authority that it purports the
the Penal Code. The CSC, acting through Commissioner Jose Gil, jurisdiction of this court to inquire into the validity or legality of
however took cognizance of the case hence Planas appealed to the an executive order is necessarily abated or suspended.
Supreme Court. The Solicitor General replied for the CSC arguing Nevertheless, SC ruled that the CSC can take cognizance of the
that under the separation of powers marked by the Constitution, case. Planas was not denied the right to voice out her opinion but
since she made allegations against the administration it is but
right for her to prove those allegations. The CSC has the right to
elicit the truth.