 September 19, 1985: SolGen questioned the legal
Demetria vs. Alba
Justice Fernan
G.R. No. L-71977 – February 27, 1987
Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution:
Section 16(5). No law shall be passed authorizing any
transfer of appropriations, however, the President, 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 an
item in the general appropriations law for their
respective offices from savings in other items of their
respective appropriations.
(Note. This section is carried over verbatim to Section
24(5) of the 1987 Constitution.)
Paragraph 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1177 (Budget
Reform Decree of 1977):
Section 44. The President shall have the authority to transfer
any fun, appropriated for the different departments, bureaus,
offices and agencies of the Executive Department, which are
included in the General Appropriations Act, to any program,
project or activity of any department, bureau, or office included
in the General Appropriations Act or approved after its
enactment.
FACTS:
 Petitioners filed an instant petition as concerned citizens
of the country, as members of the National
Assembly/Batasan Pambansa – representing their
millions of constituents as parties with general interest
common to all the people of the Philippines, and as
taxpayers
standing of petitioners, claiming that there is no
justiciable controversy, and that the provision under
consideration was enacted pursuant to Section 16(5),
Art. VIII of the 1973 Constitution
 February 27, 1986: Court required petitioners to reply to
the comment of the SolGen – they stated that ‘among
others, that as a result of the change in the
administration, there is a need to hold the resolution of
the present case in abeyance “until developments arise
to enable the parties to concretize their respective
stands.”’
 SolGen filed a rejoinder with a motion to dismiss stating
that the abrogation of said article by the Freedom
Constitution of 1986 rendered the instant petition moot
and academic
ISSUE/S:
1. W/N Petitioners have legal standing
2. W/N the case is moot and academic because of the
Freedom Constitution of 1986
3. W/N Section 44 of the ‘Budget Reform Decree of 1977
is constitutional based upon Section 16(5) of the 1973
Constitution
4. W/N the Judiciary has the authority to prohibit the
Legislative Body from its performance of duties
HELD:
1. YES
o The legal standing of the petitioners was based on
the case of Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works
wherein it was stated that “the general rule is that
not only persons individually affected, but also
taxpayers have sufficient interest in preventing
the illegal expenditures of moneys raised by
 taxation and may therefore question the job of the courts to seek that the Constitution is protected
constitutionality of statutes…” and followed at all times.

2. NO
o The case isn’t rendered moot and academic for
the 1987 Constitution carries the Article over
verbatim, but to a different section of the
Constitution
Ruling:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is granted. Paragraph 1 of
Section 44 of PD No. 1177 is hereby declared null and void for
being unconstitutional.

3. NO
o There is an evident conflict between Par. 1 of Sec.
44 of PD No. 1177 and Sec. 16(5) of Art. VIII of
the 1973 Constitution when wording is observed.
o The prohibition to transfer an appropriation was
explicit and categorical under the 1973
Constitution, but there was a considerable
flexibility in the use of public funds and
resources. ALTHOUGH, the flexibility was
clearly limited.
o “The purpose and conditions for which funds may
be transferred were specified, i.e. transfer may
be allowed for the purpose of augmenting an
item and such transfer may be made only if there
are savings from another item in the
appropriation of the government branch or
constitutional body.
o Par. 1 of Sec. 44 of PD No. 1177 overextends the
privilege given in Art. VIII of the 1973
Constitution, because it didn’t state if the funds
to be transferred were actually to be taken from
said savings of each of the heads of the
departments
4. The Judiciary and the Legislative Body are co-equal
branches of government. The courts are permitted to
declare legislative acts as unconstitutional not because
it is superior to the Legislative Body but because it is the