Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works – Concepcion, J.Petitioner: Wenceslao Pascual (Rizal Prov. Governor)Respondent: Sec. of Public Works & CommunicationsConcept: Inherent Limitations: Public Purposes

Brief Facts: RA 920 (An act appropriating funds for public works) was passed in 1953, appropriating Php 85,000.00 for the construction, reconstruction, repair, extension and improvement Pasig feeder road terminals. Wenceslao Pascual, Rizal Provincial Governor, assailed the validity of the law, claiming that the appropriation was actually going to be used for private use since the terminals were part of the Antonio Subdivision owned by Senator Jose Zulueta (who was a member of the same Senate that passed and approved the RA 920). Zulueta “donated” the said property to Pasig, only 5 months after RA 920 was passed, not before.

Doctrine: If the public advantage or benefit is merely incidental in promotion of a particular enterprise, such defect shall render the law invalid. On the other hand, if what is incidental is the promotion of a private enterprise the tax law shall be deemed for a public purpose.

FACTS:1. On May, 1953, Jose Zulueta, in a letter to the

Municipal Council of Pasig, Rizal, offered a donation projected feeder roads to the municipality of Pasig, Rizal.

2. The projected Pasig feeder road terminals were: Gen. Roxas — Gen. Araneta — Gen. Lucban — Gen. Capinpin — Gen. Segundo — Gen. Delgado — Gen. Malvar — Gen. Lim.

3. However, no deed of donation in favor of the municipality of Pasig was executed.

4. RA 920 (An act appropriating funds for public works) was passed on June 3, 1953.

5. The Act appropriated Php 85,000.00 for the construction, reconstruction, repair, extension and improvement of the said Pasig feeder road terminals.

6. Zulueta was a member of the same Senate that passed and approved the RA 920.

7. Zulueta donated the lands to be used for the feeder roads on December 12, 1953, 5 months after the RA 920 was passed.

8. On August 31, 1954, Wenceslao Pascual, Rizal Provincial Governor, filed at CFI Rizal for Declaraory Relief and Preliminary Injunction.

9. Pascual assailed the validity of the law, claiming that the appropriation was actually going to be used for private use since the terminals were part of the Antonio Subdivision owned by Senator Jose Zulueta.

Pascual: The planned feeder roads would relieve Zulueta the responsibility of improving the road which is inside his private subdivision.

o The said roads are nothing but projected and planned subdivision roads, not yet constructed within the Antonio Subdivision.

o The projected feeder roads do not connect any government property or any important premises to the main highway.

o In order to have the Act passed, the Congressmen were made to believe that the projected feeder roads in question were public roads and not private streets of a private subdivision.

o In order to give a semblance of legality, when there is absolutely none, Zulueta, while he was a Senator, donated the four (4) parcels of land constituting said projected feeder roads to the government on 1953, months after the law was passed.

Zulueta: There is public purpose for the feeder roads.o People living in the subdivision will directly be

benefitted from the construction of the roadso The government also gains from the donation

of the land supposed to be occupied by the streets.

CFI: This would greatly enhance or increase the value of the subdivision of Zulueta.

o The appropriation in question was clearly for a private, not a public purpose.

However, CFI dismissed the case of Pascual for lack of legal standing (since he does not have an interest that will be injured by said donation – A Different Issue)

Hence the appeal.

ISSUES:1. WON the appropriation is valid? (NO)

RATIO:1. NO. The appropriation is void for being an appropriation for a private purpose. The land on which the projected feeder roads were

to be constructed belonged to Senator Zulueta at the time RA 920 was passed by Congress.o The subsequent donation of the property to the

government to make the property public does not cure the constitutional defect. The fact that the law was passed when the said property was still a private property cannot be ignored.

o The validity of a stature depends on the powers of the Congress at the time of its passage or approval, not upon events occurring, or acts performed subsequent thereto, unless it is an amendment of the organic law.

“The right of the legislature to appropriate funds is correlative with its right to tax, under constitutional provisions against taxation except for public purposes and prohibiting the collection of a tax for one purpose and the devotion thereof to another purpose, no appropriation of state funds can be made for other than a public purpose.”

“In accordance with the rule that the taxing power must be exercised for public purposes only, money raised by taxation can be expanded only for public purposes and not for the advantage of private individuals.”

The test of the constitutionality of a statute requiring the use of public funds is whether the statute is designed to promote the public interest, as opposed to the furtherance of the advantage of

1

individuals, although each advantage to individuals might incidentally serve the public.

The public purpose of the tax law must exist at the time of its enactment.o RA 920 is unconstitutional because the

Congress is without power to appropriate public revenue for anything but public purpose.

o The said appropriation sought a private purpose, and, hence, was null and void.

DISPOSITIVE: The Decision appealed from is REVERSED. The Records are REMANDED to Lower Court for further proceedings.

Digested by: André

2