Scribd
Upload
388 views1 page

Garcia vs. Mata

Paragraph 11 of RA 1600, which limits the time reserve officers can be called to active duty, is unconstitutional. It violates the prohibition on "riders" in appropriations measures by addressing a new policy matter unrelated to appropriations. While the title and main subject of RA 1600 is appropriating government funds, paragraph 11 instead concerns the terms of service of reserve military officers. As it has no relevance to the budget, the provision exceeds the restricted subject of the appropriations act and is therefore inoperative.

Uploaded by

Alyanna Barre
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
388 views1 page

Garcia vs. Mata

Paragraph 11 of RA 1600, which limits the time reserve officers can be called to active duty, is unconstitutional. It violates the prohibition on "riders" in appropriations measures by addressing a new policy matter unrelated to appropriations. While the title and main subject of RA 1600 is appropriating government funds, paragraph 11 instead concerns the terms of service of reserve military officers. As it has no relevance to the budget, the provision exceeds the restricted subject of the appropriations act and is therefore inoperative.

Uploaded by

Alyanna Barre
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Article VI: The Legislative Department

Section 25. Limits on Power to Appropriate


(par. 2) Garcia v. Mata, 65 SCRA 517 (1975)
FACTS:
The subject of RA 1600, as expressed in its title, is restricted to appropriating funds for
the operation of the government.
However, paragraph 11 of RA 1600 provides: After the approval of this Act, and when
there is no emergency, no reserve officer of the Armed Forces of the Philippines may be
called to a tour of active duty for more than two years during any period of five
consecutive years
o The petitioner argues that his reversion to inactive status was in violation of the
above-quoted provision
Respondents contend that the said provision is unconstitutional as "it was indeed a non-
appropriation item inserted in an appropriation measure in violation of the constitutional
inhibition against "riders" to the general appropriation act." It was indeed a new and
completely unrelated provision attached to the Appropriation Act.
ISSUE:
Whether the said provision violates the rule on riders
RULING:
YES. The said provision has no relevance or pertinence whatsoever to the budget or to
any appropriation item contained therein since it refers to the fundamental government
policy matters of the calling to active duty and the reversion to inactive status of reserve
officers in the AFP.
If a provision in the body of the act is not fairly included in this restricted subject, like the
provision relating to the policy matters of calling to active duty and reversion to inactive
duty of reserve officers of the AFP, such provision is inoperative and of no effect. It
confers no right and affords no protection.

You might also like