Subject: Constitutional Law I

Topic: The Judicial Department; Judicial Review; Legal Standing; Requisites

Demetria v. Alba G.R. No. 71977
148 SCRA 208
FACTS: Petitioners, as concerned citizens, members of the National Assembly, parties
with general interest common to all people of the Philippines, and as taxpayers, question the
constitutionality of Paragraph 1, Section 44 of Presidential Decree No. 1177 (PD 1177) otherwise
known as the Budget Reform Decree of 1977. They argue that Section 44 infringes upon the
1987 Constitution by authorizing illegal transfer of public funds, amounting to undue delegation
of legislative powers, and allowing the President to override the safeguards prescribed for
approving appropriations.
The Solicitor General, for the public respondents, questioned the legal standing of the
petitioners and held that one branch of the government cannot be enjoined by another branch in
its performance of duties within its sphere of responsibility. The Solicitor General further alleged
that the enactment of the issuance of Presidential Proclamation No. 3 series of 1986 (also known
as the Freedom Constitution) and the ratification of the 1987 Constitution made the petition
moot and academic because it abrogated Section 16(5), Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution
which states that:
No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the Prime
Minister, the Speaker, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of
Constitutional Commissions may by law be authorized to augment any item in the
general appropriations law for their respective offices from saving in other items oftheir
respective appropriations.
The said constitutional provision was replaced by Section 25(5), Article VI of the 1987
Constitution which states that:
No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the
President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may,
by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their
respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not the petitioners have legal standing.
2. Whether or not the Supreme Court is barred from settling the issue.
3. Whether or not Paragraph 1, Section 44 of Presidential Decree No. 1177 is
constitutional.
HELD:
1. The petitioners have legal standing.
It is a well-settled rule that the validity of a statute may be contested only by
one who will sustain a direct injury in consequence of its enforcement. However, in
regards to taxpayers suits, the Supreme Court enjoys the open discretion whether or
not to entertain it. A taxpayers suit is grounded on the theory that the taxpayers have
sufficient interest in preventing illegal expenditures of funds raised by taxation. They
may, therefore, question the constitutionality of statutes requiring expenditure of
public funds.
In this case, the questioned law involves the disbursement of public funds not
in accordance with what is mandated in the Constitution. The petitioners, therefore,
has complied with the requirements for a taxpayers suits.
2. The Supreme Court is not barred from settling the issue.
When an act of the Legislative branch or the Executive branch is beyond of
what is provided in the Constitution, it becomes the duty of the Judicial branch to

nullify what the other branch has assumed to do. This is part of its judicial power as
conferred by the Constitution under Section 1 of Article VIII.
3.

Paragraph 1, Section 44 of Presidential Decree No. 1177 (PD 1177) is

unconstitutional.
The provision unduly overextends the privilege granted under Section 16(5),
Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution. It empowers the President to indiscriminately
transfer funds from one department of the Executive to any program of any
department included in the General Appropriations Act, without any regard as to
whether or not the funds to be transferred are actually savings in the item. It not only
disregards the standards set in the fundamental law, thereby amounting to an undue
delegation of legislative powers, but likewise goes beyond the tenor thereof.
Paragraph 1, Section 44 of PD 1177 removes all safeguards to forestall abuses in the
expenditure of public fund. Such constitutional infirmities render the provision null
and void.