7/29/2019 5 Gonzales

1/2

Facts:

Congress passed House Bill No. 19186 (GAB of Fiscal Year 1989) which eliminated or decreasedcertain items included in the proposed budget submitted by the president

President signed bill into law (RA 6688) but vetoed 7 special provisions and Sec 55, a generalprovision.

Senate passed Res. No. 381 Senate as an institution decided to contest the constitutionality ofthe veto of the president of SEC 55 only.

this petition was filed filed motion for leave to file and to admit supplemental petition same issues but included SEC

16 of House Bill 26934 (Gab for FY 1990 or RA 6831)

SEC. 55 disallows the president and heads of several department to augment any item inthe GAB thereby violation CONSTI ART VI SEC 25 (5) (page 459)

SEC 16 of the GAB of 1990 provides for the same and the reason for veto remains thesame with the additional legal basis of violation of PD 1177 SEC 44 and 45 as amended

by RA 6670 that authorizes the president and the heads of depts. To use saving to

augment any item of appropriations in the exec branch of government (page 460)

ISSUE:

Whether or not the veto by the President of SEC 55 of GAB for FY 1989 and SEC 16 of GAB for FY 1990 is

unconstitutional.

HELD: NO

The veto is CONSTITUTIONAL. Although the petitioners contend that the veto exceeded the mandate of the line-veto power of

the president because SEC 55 and SEC 16 are provisions the court held that inappropriate

provisions can be treated as items (Henry v. Edwards) and therefore can be vetoed validly by the

president.

Furthermore inappropriate provisions must be struck down because they contravene theconstitution because it limits the power of the executive to augment appropriations (ART VI SEC

25 PAR 5.)

The provisions are inappropriate because They do not relate to particular or distinctive appropriations Disapproved or reduces items are nowhere to be found on the face of the bill It is more of an expression of policy than an appropriation Court also said that to make the GAB veto-proof would be logrolling on the part of the legislative

the subject matter of the provisions should be dealt with in separate and complete legislation

but because they are aware that it would be NOT passed in that manner they attempt hide it in

the GAB

If the legislature really believes that the exercise of veto is really invalid then congressSHOULD resort to their constitutionally vested power to override the veto. (ART VI SEC

21 PAR 1)

ISSUE: Whether or not the President exceeded the item-veto power accorded by the Constitution. Or

differently put, has the President the power to veto `provisions of an Appropriations Bill.

7/29/2019 5 Gonzales

2/2

HELD:

Congress cannot include in a general appropriations bill matters that should be more properly enacted in

separate legislation, and

ifit does that, the inappropriate provisions inserted by it must be treated as item, which can be vetoed

by the President in the exercise of his item-veto power.

The SC went one step further and rules that even assuming arguendo that provisions are beyond the

executive power to veto, and Section 55 (FY 89) and Section 16 (FY 90) were not provisions in the

budgetary sense of the term, they are inappropriate provisions that should be treated as items for the

purpose of the Presidents veto power.