PHILCONSA VS ENRIQUEZ

Posted by kaye lee on 9:14 AM

G.R. No. 113105 August 19 1994 [Article VI Section 25 - Appropriations]

FACTS:
Petitioners assailed the validity of RA 7663 or General Appropriations Act of 1994.
GAA contains a special provision that allows any members of the Congress the REalignment of Allocation
for Operational Expenses, provided that the total of said allocation is not exceeded.
Philconsa claims that only the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives are the
ones authorized under the Constitution to realign savings, not the individual members of Congress
themselves.
President signed the law, but Vetoes certain provisions of the law and imposed certain provisional
conditions: that the AFP Chief of Staff is authorized to use savings to augment the pension funds under
the Retirement and Separation Benefits of the AFP.

ISSUE:
Whether or not RA 7663 is violative of Article VI, Section 25 (5) of 1987 Constitution.

RULING:
Yes. Only the Senate President and the Speaker of the House are allowed to approve the realignment.
Furthermore, two conditions must be met: 1) the funds to be realigned are actually savings, and 2) the
transfer is for the purpose of augmenting the items of expenditures to which said transfer to be made.

As to the certain condition given to the AFP Chief of Staff, it is violative of of Sections 25(5) and 29(1) of
the Article VI of the Constitution. The list of those who may be authorized to transfer funds is exclusive.
the AFP Chief of Staff may not be given authority.
PHILCONSA vs Enriquez GR No 113105 19 August 1994

Facts: The General Appropriations Act appropriated Php 86.3 billion for debt services.
Congress added a special provision which provided that the amount appropriated shall be
used for payment of the national debt only and not to be paid to the liabilities of the Central
Bank. The appropriation for DPWH also provided that the maximum amount to be
contracted for the maintenance of national roads and bridges should not exceed 30% the
appropriation for medicines by the Armed Forces of the Philippines required approval
Congress for the release of funds.
In the General Appropriations Act of 1994 the appropriation for the Armed Forces of the
Philippines contains a provision authorizing the Chief of Staff to use savings in the
appropriation to augment the pension and gratuity fund of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines. The President vetoed the authorization given by the Chief of Staff to use savings
to augment the pension and gratuity fund. Several Senators questioned the validity of the
veto.

Issue: Whether or not the President’s veto is valid?

Decision: Petition dismissed. Congress can not include in the general appropriations
matters that should be enacted in a separate legislation and if it does so, the inappropriate
provision must be treated as an item and can be vetoed by the President.
The provision in GAA authorizing the Chief of Staff to use savings to augment the pension
and gratuity fund violates Section 25 (paragraph 5) and Section 29 (paragraph 1) of Article
6 of the 1987 Constitution. Only the President is authorized to augment items from savings
in the general appropriation to the executive branch. Also pursuant to Section 29 – no
money shall be paid out of the treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by
law.