000 Bengzon V.

Drilon
G.R. No. 103524 ; April 15, 1992
TOPIC: Procedure for passage of bills
PONENTE: Gutierrez Jr., J.

AUTHOR:
NOTES: (if applicable)

FACTS:
1. On June 20, 1953, RA No. 910 was enacted to provide the retirement pensions of Justices of the Supreme
Court and of the Court of Appeals who have rendered at least twenty (20) years service either in the Judiciary or
in any other branch of the Government or in both, having attained the age of seventy (70) years or who resign by
reason of incapacity to discharge the duties of the office. He shall receive until his death the salary which he has
received at the time of his retirement.
2. RA No. 910 was amended by RA No. 1797. Identical retirement benefits were given to Constitutional
Commissions and the AFP, under RA No. 1568, as amended by RA No. 3595, and PD 578, respectively.
3. Marcos issued successive decrees which automatically readjusted the retirement pensions of military officers
and enlisted men. But those in the judiciary and the Constitutional Commissions were not included in this
automatic readjustment, as Marcos repealed the automatic readjustment provisions.
4. Petitioners are retired justices of the SC and the CA who were receiving monthly pensions under RA No.910
as amended by RA No. 1797. Respondents, Drilon, et al are sued in their official capacities of the Executive,
involved in the implementation of the release of funds appropriated in the Annual Appropriations Law.
5. Realizing the unfairness of the discrimination against the members of the Judiciary and the Constitutional
Commissions, Congress approved in 1990 a bill (House Bill No. 16297) for the reenactment of the repealed
provisions of Republic Act No. 1797 and Republic Act no. 3595.
6. President Aquino vetoed the bill for it would allegedly disrupt the compensation standardization. However, it
turned out that due to PD 644 not being publicized (it was only published in OG on 1983 not 1975), it had never
become a valid law, making HB 16297 redundant for RA 1797 was still in effect. The veto on HB 16297
produced no effect.
7. Congress included in the General Appropriations Bill (GAB) for Fiscal Year 1992 certain appropriations for
the Judiciary intended for the payment of the adjusted pension rates. President Aquino vetoed particular
provisions in GAB.
8. Jan. 15, 1992 Pres. Aquino vetoed portions of Section 1 and the entire Section 4 of the Special Provision for
the SC and the Lower Courts on the ground that the President vetoed the HB on the matter already, and such
appropriation would erode the policy of salary standardization.
ISSUE(S): Is the veto of the President of certain provisions in the General Appropriations Act for the Fiscal Year
1992 relating to the payment of the adjusted pension of the retired Justices of the SC and the CA
unconstitutional?
HELD: Yes. This is because The President exceeded her item-veto power accorded by the Constitution
[Article VI, Sec. 27 (2)].
RATIO:
Veto Power of the President
1. Though constitutionally vested, the act of Executive in vetoing is not absolute.
2. Generally, the Executive must veto a bill in its entirety or not at all.
3. Item veto power does not grant the authority to approve a part of such item and disapprove the remainder.
4. Limitations of the veto power of the President:
(a) The President cannot veto the provisions of law that have been enacted long before his/her term of
office started; (b) The President cannot, through the exercise of the veto power, set aside or reverse a
final and executory judgment of the Supreme Court; (c) Having the power to merely execute the laws as
passed by the Congress, the President, through the exercise of the veto power, has no authority to enact or
amend statutes promulgated by his/her predecessors, or to repeal existing laws.
Moreover, the vetoed portions are not items. They are provisions.
The Veto by the president trenches upon the constitutional grant of fiscal autonomy to the Judiciary:
Guaranty of full flexibility to allocate and utilize their resources with the wisdom and dispatch that their
needs require

Power to levy, assess and collect fees, fix rates of compensation not exceeding highest rates authorized
by law
Veto is tantamount to dictating to the judiciary how its funds should be utilized
Right to Pension
1. Retired Justices have vested right to the accrued pensions due to them pursuant to RA 1791.
2. Compliance with the statutory prerequisite for retirement grants vested right to retire and draw salary, and may
not, thereafter, be revoked or impaired.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
The repealing decrees of Marcos in taking away the automatic readjustment for the judiciary never became valid
law because it was never published, pursuant to the Tanada v. Tuvera doctrine; RA 1797 was never repealed and
there was no need for an HB in 1990 to restore it so even the presidents veto of the HB does not even have any
effect in the continuing implementation of the law.
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):