Scribd
Upload
19 views2 pages

(DIGESTED-Prelims) Reference Case #8

The Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of President Cory Aquino's veto of specific provisions in the 1989 and 1990 Appropriations Bills, asserting that Congress cannot include inappropriate provisions in such bills. The Court determined that these provisions can be treated as items eligible for the President's item-veto power. Ultimately, the ruling clarified the limits of the veto power regarding appropriations and the separation of legislative and executive powers.

Uploaded by

Leopoldo, Jr. Blanco
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
19 views2 pages

(DIGESTED-Prelims) Reference Case #8

The Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of President Cory Aquino's veto of specific provisions in the 1989 and 1990 Appropriations Bills, asserting that Congress cannot include inappropriate provisions in such bills. The Court determined that these provisions can be treated as items eligible for the President's item-veto power. Ultimately, the ruling clarified the limits of the veto power regarding appropriations and the separation of legislative and executive powers.

Uploaded by

Leopoldo, Jr. Blanco
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

(Reference Case #8 - Prelims)

Neptali Gonzales
vs
Macaraig
G.R. No. 87636
November 19, 1990

Political Law – Veto Power – Inappropriate Provision in an Appropriation Bill

FACTS:

Gonzales, together w/ 22 other senators, assailed the constitutionality of Cory’s veto of Section 55 of the 1989
Appropriations Bill (Sec 55 FY ’89, and subsequently of its counterpart Section 16 of the 1990 Appropriations Bill (Sec
16 FY ’90). Gonzalez averred the following: (1) the President’s line-veto power as regards appropriation bills is limited to
item/s and does not cover provision/s; therefore, she exceeded her authority when she vetoed Section 55 (FY ’89) and
Section 16 (FY ’90) which are provision; (2) when the President objects to a provision of an appropriation bill, she
cannot exercise the item-veto power but 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 would be legislation, in violation of the doctrine of separation of
powers; and (4) the power of augmentation in Article VI, Section 25 [5] of the 1987 Constitution, has to be provided for
by law and, therefore, Congress is also vested with the prerogative to impose restrictions on the exercise of that power.

ISSUE:

WON the President exceeded the item-veto power accorded by the Constitution. Or differently put, has the President the
power to veto `provisions’ of an Appropriations Bill.
RULING:

SC ruled that Congress cannot include in a general appropriations bill matters that should be more properly enacted in
separate legislation, and if it does that, the inappropriate provisions inserted by it must be treated as “item,” which can
be vetoed by the President in the exercise of his item-veto power. The SC went one step further and rules that even
assuming arguendo that “provisions” are beyond the executive power to veto, and Section 55 (FY ’89) and Section 16 (FY
’90) were not “provisions” in the budgetary sense of the term, they are “inappropriate provisions” that should be treated
as “items” for the purpose of the President’s veto power.

You might also like