DEMETRIA V ALBA

Facts:
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of first paragraph of Sec 44 of PD 1177
(Budget Reform Decree of 1977)as concerned citizens, members of the National
Assembly, parties with general interest common to all people of the Philippines, and
as taxpayerson the primary grounds that Section 44 infringes upon the
fundamental law by authorizing illegal transfer of public moneys, amounting to
undue delegation of legislative powers and allowing the President to override the
safeguards prescribed for approving appropriations.
The Solicitor General, for the public respondents, questioned the legal standing of
the petitioners and held that one branch of the government cannot be enjoined by
another, coordinate branch in its performance of duties within its sphere of
responsibility. It also alleged that the petition has become moot and academic after
the abrogation of Sec 16(5), Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution by the Freedom
Constitution (which was where the provision under consideration was enacted in
pursuant thereof), which states that No law shall be passed authorizing any
transfer of appropriations, however, the Presidentmay by law be authorized to
augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from
savings in other items of their respective appropriations.
Issue:
1. W/N PD 1177 is constitutional
2. W/N the Supreme Court can act upon the assailed executive act
Held:
1. No. Sec 44 of PD 1177 unduly overextends the privilege granted under Sec16(5)
by empowering the President to indiscriminately transfer funds from one
department of the Executive Department to any program of any department
included in the General Appropriations Act, without any regard as to whether or not
the funds to be transferred are actually savings in the item. It not only disregards
the standards set in the fundamental law, thereby amounting to an undue
delegation of legislative powers, but likewise goes beyond the tenor thereof.
Par. 1 of Sec. 44 puts all safeguards to forestall abuses in the expenditure of public
funds to naught. Such constitutional infirmities render the provision in question null
and void.
2. Yes. Where the legislature or 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 has assumed to do as void, as part of its
constitutionally conferred judicial power. This is not to say that the judicial power is
superior in degree or dignity. In exercising this high authority, the judges claim no
judicial supremacy; they are only the administrators of the public will.
Petition granted. Par. 1, Sec. 44 OF PD 1177 null and void.