PHILCONSA V.

ENRIQUEZ
A.
FACTS:
RA 7663 (former House bill No. 10900, the
Funds for the Operation of the Government of the Philippines from January 1 to December 1,1994, and for other
Petitioners assail the special provision
allowing a member of Congress to realign his allocation for operational expenses to any other expense
category claiming that it violates Sec. 25, Art 7 of the Constitution. Issues of constitutionality were raised before the
Supreme Court.PhilConsA prayed for a writ of prohibition to declare unconstitutional and void a.) Art 16 on the
Countrywide Development Fund and b.) The veto of the President of the Special provision of Art XLVIII of the
GAA of 1994.16 members of the Senate sought the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
against the Exec. Secretary, the Sec of Dept of Budget and Management and the National Treasurer andquestions:
1.) Constitutionality of the conditions imposed by the President in the items of the GAA of 1994 and2.) the
constitutionality of the veto of the special provision in the appropriation for debt services. Senators Tanada and
Romulo sought the issuance of the writs of prohibition and mandamus against the same respondents. Petitioners
contest the constitutionality of: 1.) veto on four special provisions added to items in the GAA of 1994 for the AFP
and DPWH; and 2.) the conditions imposed by the President in the implementation of certain appropriations for the
ghway Authority.
B.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the veto of the president on four special provisions is constitutional and valid?
C.
HELD:
1.Special Provision on Debt Ceiling
-ceiling. Vetoed by the Pres. w/ovetoing the entire appropriation for debt service. The
said provisions are germane to & have direct relation w/debt service. They are appropriate provisions & cannot be
vetoed w/o vetoing the entire item/appropriation.VETO VOID
.2.Special Provision on Revolving Funds for
Visayas State Univ. & Leyte State Colleges vetoed by
law. Pres. merely acted in pursuance to existing law.VETO VALID
3.Special Provision on Road Maintenance
roads be contracted according to guidelines set forth by
DPWH. Vetoed by the Pres. w/o vetoing the entireappropriation. It is not an inappropriate provision; it is not alien to
the subj. of road maintenance & cannot beveoted w/o vetoing the entire appropriation.VETO VOID.
4.Special Provision on Purchase of Military Equip.
-called
legislative veto. Any prov. blocking anadmin. action in implementing a law or requiring legislative approval must be
subj. of a separate law.VETOVALID.
5.Special Provision on Use of Savings for AFP Pensions
Pres. may exercise such powerpursuant to a specific law. Properly vetoed.VETO VALID.
6.Special Provision on Conditions for de-activation of CAFGU
an amendment toexisting law (PD No. 1597 & RA No. 6758). A provision in an appropriation act cannot be used to
repeal/amendexisting laws.VETO VALID.