BENGZON v.

DRILON
208 SCRA 133 Political Law Veto Power of the President
In 1990, Congress sought to reenact some old laws (i.e. Republic
Act No. 1797) that were repealed during the time of former
President Ferdinand Marcos. These old laws provided certain
retirement benefits to retired judges, justices, and members of
the constitutional commissions. Congress felt a need to restore
these laws in order to standardize retirement benefits among
government officials. 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.
Meanwhile, a group of retired judges and justices filed a petition
with the Supreme Court asking the court to readjust their
pensions. They pointed out that RA 1797 was never repealed (by
P.D. No. 644) because the said PD was one of those unpublished
PDs which were subject of the case of Taada v. Tuvera. Hence,
the repealing law never existed due to non publication and in
effect, RA 1797 was never repealed. The Supreme Court then
readjusted their pensions.
Congress took notice of the readjustment and son in the General
Appropriations Bill (GAB) for 1992, Congress allotted additional
budget for pensions of retired justices. Congress however did the
allotment in the following manner: Congress made an item
entitled: General Fund Adjustment; included therein are
allotments to unavoidable obligations in different brances 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 GAB. 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. The President was represented by then Executive
Secretary Franklin Drilon.
ISSUE: Whether or not the veto of the President on that portion
of the General Appropriations bill is constitutional.
HELD: No. The Justices of the Court have vested rights to the
accrued pension that is due to them in accordance to Republic
Act 1797 which was never repealed. The president has no power
to set aside and override the decision of the Supreme Court
neither does the president have the power to enact or amend
statutes promulgated by her predecessors much less to the
repeal of existing laws.
The Supreme Court also 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; 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.