CONSTI 1 Case Digest Prepared by: Ian Manzano
Demetria v. Alba, 148 SCRA 208 (1987)
TOPIC: Separation of Powers
Court En Banc
Citation G.R. No. 71997
Date Feb. 27, 1987
Petitioners Demetrio G. Demetria, [Link]
Respondent Hon. Manuel Alba
Ponente -
Case Doctrine Related to Topic
Where the legislature or the executive branch is acting within the limits of its authority, the judiciary cannot
and ought not to interfere with the former. But where the legislature or the executive acts beyond the
scope of its constitutional powers, it becomes the duty of the judiciary to declare what the other
branches of the government had assumed to do as void which is the very essence of judicial power
vested “in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as established by law” as expressed in Art. VIII
Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution.
Case Summary
Petitioners assailed the constitutionality of Paragraph 1 of Section 44 of Presidential-Decree No. 1177 on the
grounds that
1. The President has the authority to transfer any fund appropriated for the different departments.
2. There is an undue delegation of legislative powers to the executive.
The Court ruled that there is an apparent conflict between paragraph 1 of Section 44 of Presidential-Decree
No. 1177 and Section 16[5], Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution on the ground that the former granted the
President the authority to indiscriminately transfer funds from the Executive Department to any program or
activity of any department ergo, deeming the same former to be unconstitutional. The petition was granted
and the same PD was declared unconstitutional.
FACTS
- Petitioners, who filed as concerned citizens of the country, filed a petition for prohibition with prayer
for a writ of preliminary injunction alleging that Par.1 Section 44 of PD No. 1177 amounts to an undue
delegation of legislative powers to the executive, granting the President to override the procedures
prescribed by the Constitution in approving appropriations and facilitate illegal transfer of funds.
- September 19, 1985. The Solicitor General raised the following submissions:
- (1) The Sol Gen questioned the legal standing of petitioners
- (2) The Sol Gen contended that the provision under consideration was enacted pursuant to
Section 16[5] of Article VIIII of the 1973 Constitution.
- (3) The Sol Gen also contends that the prohibition will not lie (cannot affect) the performance of
duties of the branches within the branch’s sphere of responsibility.
- The public respondents filed a rejoinder with a motion to dismiss, setting forth as grounds therefor the
abrogation of Sec 16(5) Art VIII of 1973 Constitution by the Freedom Constitution of Mar. 25, 1986.
1
CONSTI 1 Case Digest Prepared by: Ian Manzano
Demetria v. Alba, 148 SCRA 208 (1987)
TOPIC: Separation of Powers
ISSUE - HELD - RATIO:
ISSUE # 1 [MAIN ISSUE] HELD
W/N Par 1 Sec 44 of PD No. 1177 is unconstitutional. YES
RATIO
There is an apparent conflict of interest between Sec 44(1) of PD No. 1177 and Section 16(5) of Article VIII
of the 1973 Constitution
- The Court held that the prohibition to transfer an appropriation for one item to another was explicit
and categorical under the 1973 Constitution. The provisions in the 1973 Constitution only grants a
limited power over its authority to transfer funds subject to the following conditions:
- (1) The purpose of the transfer is to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their
respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.
- (2) Funds to be transferred must be from actual savings in the item from which it will be taken.
There is a complete disregard of the standards set in the fundamental law.
- The same PD empowers the President to indiscriminately transfer funds from one department,
bureau, office, or agency of the Executive Department to any program, project, or activity of any
department, bureau, or office within the provisions of the General Appropriations Act.
- There is an undue delegation of legislative powers to the executive when it passed a law empowering
the President to have authority to transfer any fund appropriated for the different departments.
ISSUE # 2 HELD
W/N the Court has the power to enjoin the performance of duties of another YES
coordinate branch
RATIO
The principle of Separation of Powers is not violated
- It becomes the duty of the judiciary to declare what the other branches of the government had
assumed to do as void whenever the legislature or the executive acts beyond the scope of its
constitutional powers.
- This duty to enforce the Constitution does not violate the Separation of Power Doctrine but rather
upholds the supremacy of the Constitution.
2
CONSTI 1 Case Digest Prepared by: Ian Manzano
Demetria v. Alba, 148 SCRA 208 (1987)
TOPIC: Separation of Powers
ISSUE # 3 (Least important issue) HELD
W/N the petitioners have legal standing YES
RATIO
The Court ruled that taxpayers have sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditures of moneys raised
by taxation and may therefore question the constitutionality of statutes requiring expenditure of public
moneys (Pascual and v. Secretary of Public Works).
RULING:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is granted. Par 1 Sec 44 of PD. No. 1177 is hereby declared null and void
for being unconstitutional.
