235 SCRA 506 Political Law Veto Power Part of the Legislative ProcessConstitutionality of the Pork Barrel Countrywi!e "evelo#$ent %un!&This is a consolidation of cases which sought to question the veto authority of the president involvingtheGeneral AppropriationsBill of 1994aswell astheconstitutionalityof theporkbarrel. ThePhilippineConstitutionssociation!P"#$C%&'( questionsthecountrywidedevelop)ent fund.P"#$C%&' said that Congress can only allocate funds but they cannot specify the ite)s as towhich those funds would be applied for since that is already the function of the e*ecutive.#nG.+. &o. 11,-../ afterthevetoingbythepresident of so)eprovisionsof theG0of 1994/neither house of congress took steps to override the veto. #nstead/ 'enators 1igberto Ta2ada andlberto +o)ulo sought the issuance of the writs of prohibition and )anda)us against 3*ecutive'ecretary Teofisto Guingona et al.Ta2ada et al contest the constitutionality of4 !1( the veto on fourspecial provisions added to ite)s in the G0 of 1994 for theArmed Forces of the Philippines !5P(and the 6epart)ent of Public 1orks and "ighways !6P1"(7 and !8( the conditions i)posed by thePresident inthei)ple)entationof certainappropriationsfor theC5G9:s/ the6P1"/ andthe&ational Housing Authority !&"(.ISSUE: 1hether or not the President:s veto is valid.HELD: #n the P"#$C%&' petition/ the 'C ruled that Congress acted within its power and that theC65 is constitutional. #n the Ta2ada petitions the 'C dis)issed the other petitions and granted theothers.Veto on special provisionsThepresident didhisvetowithcertainconditionsandco)pliant totherulingin 'on(alesvs)acaraig* The president particularly vetoed the det reduction sche)e in the Gof 1994co))enting that the sche)e is already taken cared of by other legislation and )aybe more properly addressed by revising the debt policy. "e/ however did not delete theP;./,8,/4,;/shall effectivelyalter theoriginal intent of the5PEoderniAation5undtocover all )ilitaryequip)ent dee)ednecessary to )oderniAe the 5P?. The 'C affir)ed the veto. ny provision blocking anad)inistrative action in i)ple)enting a law or requiring legislative approval of e*ecutive acts )ustbe incorporated in a separate and substantive bill. Therefore/ being >inappropriate? provisions.Veto o! provision on use o! savings to augment AF+pension !undsccording to the President/ the grant of retire)ent and separation benefits should be covered bydirect appropriations specifically approved for the purpose pursuant to 'ection 89!1( of rticle F# oftheConstitution. Eoreover/hestatedthat theauthoritytousesavingsislodgedintheofficialsenu)erated in 'ection 8G!G( of rticle F# of the Constitution. The 'C retained the veto per reasonsprovided by the president."ondition on the deactivation o! the "AF,U-sCongress appropriated co)pensation for the C5G9:s including the payment of separationbenefits. ThePresident declaredinhisFetoEessagethat thei)ple)entationof this'pecialProvision to the ite) on the C5G9:s shall be subCect to prior Presidential approval pursuant to P.6.&o. 1G9- and +.. &o. .-G;. The 'C ruled to retain the veto per reasons provided by the president.5urther/ if this provision is allowed the it would only lead to the repeal of said e*isting laws."onditions on the appropriation !or the Supreme "ourt. etc#n his veto )essage4 >The said condition is consistent with the Constitutional inCunction prescribedunder 'ection ;/ rticle #H@0 of the Constitutional which states that Ino elective or appointive publicofficer or e)ployeeshall receiveadditional/ double/ or indirect co)pensationunlessspecificallyauthoriAed by law.: # a)/ therefore/ confident that the heads of the said offices shall )aintain fidelityto the law and faithfully adhere to the well@established principle on co)pensation standardiAation.Ta2ada et al clai) that the conditions i)posed by the President violated the independence and fiscalautono)y of the 'upre)e court/ the %)buds)an/ the C% and the C"+. The 'C sustained theveto4 #n the first place/ the conditions questioned by petitioners were placed in the G0 by Congressitself/ not by the President. The Feto Eessage )erely highlighted the Constitutional )andate thatadditionalor indirect co)pensation can only be given pursuant to law. #n the second place/ suchstate)ents are )ere re)inders that the disburse)ents of appropriations )ust be )ade inaccordance with law. 'uch state)ents )ay/ at worse/ be treated as superfluities.+or/ Barrel "onstitutionalThe pork barrel)akes the unequal equal. The Congress)en/ being representatives of their localdistricts know )ore about the proble)s in their constituents areas than the national govern)ent orthe president for that )atter. "ence/ with that knowledge/ the Congress)en are in a better positionto reco))end as to where funds should be allocated.