Facts:

The Congress approved in 1990 a bill for the reenactment of the repealed provision of
Republic Act No. 1797 and No. 3595. These old laws provided certain retirement benefits to retired
judges, justices, and members of the constitutional commissions. However, President Corazon Aquino
vetoed the bill (House Bill No. 16297) on the ground that the law should not give preferential
treatment to certain or select government officials. For this reason, a group of retired judges and
justices led a petition with the Supreme Court asking the court to readjust their pensions. They
reasoned out that Presidential Decree 644 repealing Republic Act No. 1797 did not become law as
there was no valid publication pursuant to Tanada v. Tuvera. The Supreme Court then readjusted
their pensions. Congress allotted additional budget for pensions of retired justices. However, they did
the allotment in the following manner: Congress made an item entitled: “General Fund Adjustment”;
included therein are allotments to unavoidable obligations in different branches of the government;
among such obligations is the allotment for the pensions of retired justices of the judiciary. However,
President Aquino again vetoed the said lines which provided for the pensions of the retired justices in
the judiciary in the General Appropriations Bill. She explained that that portion of the GAB is already
deemed vetoed when she vetoed H.B. 16297. This prompted Cesar Bengzon and several other retired
judges and justices to question the constitutionality of the veto made by the President.

Issue:
Whether or not the veto of the President on that portion of the General Appropriations bill is
constitutional.

Ruling:
No. The Supreme Court explained that the veto is unconstitutional since the power of the
president to disapprove any item or items in the appropriations bill does not grant the authority to
veto part of an item and to approve the remaining portion of said item. It appears that in the same
item, the Presidents vetoed some portion of it and retained the others. This cannot be done. The rule
is: the Executive must veto a bill in its entirety or not at all or the Executive must veto an entire line
item in its entirety or not at all. In this case, the president did not veto the entire line item of the
general adjustment fund. She merely vetoed the portion which pertained to the pensions of the
justices but did not veto the other items covering obligations to the other departments of the
government.

Main Point:
As a general rule, if the President disapproves a bill approved by Congress, he should veto the
entire bill. He is not allowed to veto separate items of a bill. It is only in the case of appropriation,
revenue, and tariff bills that he is authorized to exercise item-veto.