Gonzales vs.

Macaraig
G.R. No 87636 November 19, 1990
Ponente: J. MelencioHerrera
Facts: December 16, 1988, Congress passed House Bill
No. 19186 akaGeneral Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 1989.
December 29,1988, President signed the Bill into law and had
become Rep. Act No 6688. In the process, seven special
provisions and Section 55 on General Provision were vetoed.
Senate issued Resolution No. 381 expressing the veto by the
presidentwere unconstitutional."SEC. 55. Prohibition Against t
he Restoration or Increase of Recommended Appropriations
Disapproved and/or Reduced by Congress: No item of
appropriation recommended by the President in the Budget
submitted to Congress pursuant to Article VII, Section 22
of the Constitution which has been disapproved or reduced in
this Act shall be restored or increased by the use
of appropriations authorized for other purposes by
augmentation. An item of appropriation for any purpose
recommended by the President in the Budget shall be deemed to have
been disapproved by Congress if no corresponding appropriation
for the specific purpose is provided in this Act."
Issue: Whether or not veto made by the president is
constitutional
Held:Yes.
1) Article 6 Section 27 of the 1987 Constitution has 2 parts, a.)
President generally can veto the entire bill as exercise of her
power and b.) president shall have the power to veto any
particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue of tariff bill
but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does not
object.

2) General provisions made in an appropriations bill shall

ultimately refer to a specific appropriation for it to take effect;
Section 55 did not refer to any appropriations involved in the
entire bill. Similarly, the contents of this section is concerned
on Appropriation Disapproved and/or reduced by Congress
that is not included on the face of the bill.
Court ruled the constitutionality of the presidential veto and the
petition was DISMISSED

Political Law Veto Power Inappropriate Provision in an

Appropriation Bill
Gonzales, together w/ 22 other senators, assailed the
constitutionality of Corys 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
Presidents 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: Whether or not the President exceeded the itemveto power accorded by the Constitution. Or differently put,
has the President the power to veto `provisions of an
Appropriations Bill.
HELD: 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 Presidents veto power.