FULL TEXT ON ART 7Scope of Power

1.Marcos v. Manglapus- 177 SCRA 668 [1989]

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 88211 September 15, 1989

FERDINAND E. MARCOS, IMELDA R. MARCOS, FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR., IRENE M. ARANETA, IMEE MANOTOC, TOMAS MANOTOC, GREGORIO ARANETA, PACIFICO E. MARCOS, NICANOR YIGUEZ and PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), represented by its President, CONRADO F. ESTRELLA,petitioners,vs.HONORABLE RAUL MANGLAPUS, CATALINO MACARAIG, SEDFREY ORDOEZ, MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, FIDEL RAMOS, RENATO DE VILLA, in their capacity as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Executive Secretary, Secretary of Justice, Immigration Commissioner, Secretary of National Defense and Chief of Staff, respectively,respondents.

CORTES,J.:Before the Court is a contreversy of grave national importance. While ostensibly only legal issues are involved, the Court's decision in this case would undeniably have a profound effect on the political, economic and other aspects of national life.

We recall that in February 1986, Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the presidency via the non-violent "people power" revolution and forced into exile. In his stead, Corazon C. Aquino was declared President of the Republic under a revolutionary government. Her ascension to and consilidation of power have not been unchallenged. The failed Manila Hotel coup in 1986 led by political leaders of Mr. Marcos, the takeover of television station Channel 7 by rebel troops led by Col. Canlas with the support of "Marcos loyalists" and the unseccessful plot of the Marcos spouses to surreptitiously return from Hawii with mercenaries aboard an aircraft chartered by a Lebanese arms dealer [Manila Bulletin, January 30, 1987] awakened the nation to the capacity of the Marcoses to stir trouble even from afar and to the fanaticism and blind loyalty of their followers in the country. The ratification of the 1987 Constitution enshrined the victory of "people power" and also clearly reinforced the constitutional moorings of Mrs. Aquino's presidency. This did not, however, stop bloody challenges to the government. On August 28, 1987, Col. Gregorio Honasan, one of the major players in the February Revolution, led a failed coup that left scores of people, both combatants and civilians, dead. There were several other armed sorties of lesser significance, but the message they conveyed was the same a split in the ranks of the military establishment that thraetened civilian supremacy over military and brought to the fore the realization that civilian government could be at the mercy of a fractious military.

But the armed threats to the Government were not only found in misguided elements and among rabid followers of Mr. Marcos. There are also the communist insurgency and the seccessionist movement in Mindanao which gained ground during the rule of Mr. Marcos, to the extent that the communists have set up a parallel government of their own on the areas they effectively control while the separatist are virtually free to move about in armed bands. There has been no let up on this groups' determination to wrest power from the govermnent. Not only through resort to arms but also to through the use of propaganda have they been successful in dreating chaos and destabilizing the country.

Nor are the woes of the Republic purely political. The accumulated foreign debt and the plunder of the nation attributed to Mr. Marcos and his cronies left the economy devastated. The efforts at economic recovery, three years after Mrs. Aquino assumed office, have yet to show concrete results in alleviating the poverty of the masses, while the recovery of the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses has remained elusive.

Now, Mr. Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his wish to return to the Philipppines to die. But Mrs. Aquino, considering the dire consequences to the nation of his return at a time when the stability of government is threatened from various directions and the economy is just beginning to rise and move forward, has stood firmly on the decision to bar the return of Mr. Marcos and his family.

The PetitionThis case is unique. It should not create a precedent, for the case of a dictator forced out of office and into exile after causing twenty years of political, economic and social havoc in the country and who within the short space of three years seeks to return, is in a class by itself.

This petition formandamusand prohibition asks the Courts to order the respondents to issue travel documents to Mr. Marcos and the immediate members of his family and to enjoin the implementation of the President's decision to bar their return to the Philippines.

The IssueTh issue is basically one of power: whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution, the President may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines.

According to the petitioners, the resolution of the case would depend on the resolution of the following issues:

1. Does the President have the power to bar the return of former President Marcos and family to the Philippines?

a. Is this a political question?

2. Assuming that the President has the power to bar former President Marcos and his family from returning to the Philippines, in the interest of "national security, public safety or public health

a. Has the President made a finding that the return of former President Marcos and his family to the Philippines is a clear and present danger to national security, public safety or public health?

b. Assuming that she has made that finding

(1) Have the requirements of due process been complied with in making such finding?

(2) Has there been prior notice to petitioners?

(3) Has there been a hearing?

(4) Assuming that notice and hearing may be dispensed with, has the President's decision, including the grounds upon which it was based, been made known to petitioners so that they may controvert the same?

c. Is the President's determination that the return of former President Marcos and his family to the Philippines is a clear and present danger to national security, public safety, or public health a political question?

d. Assuming that the Court may inquire as to whether the return of former President Marcos and his family is a clear and present danger to national security, public safety, or public health, have respondents established such fact?

3. Have the respondents, therefore, in implementing the President's decision to bar the return of former President Marcos and his family, acted and would be acting without jurisdiction, or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, in performing any act which would effectively bar the return of former President Marcos and his family to the Philippines? [Memorandum for Petitioners, pp. 5-7; Rollo, pp. 234-236.1

The case for petitioners is founded on the assertion that the right of the Marcoses to return to the Philippines is guaranteed under the following provisions of the Bill of Rights, to wit:

Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

xxx xxx xxx

Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.

The petitioners contend that the President is without power to impair the liberty of abode of the Marcoses because only a court may do so "within the limits prescribed by law." Nor may the President impair their right to travel because no law has authorized her to do so. They advance the view that before the right to travel may be impaired by any authority or agency of the government, there must be legislation to that effect.

The petitioners further assert that under international law, the right of Mr. Marcos and his family to return to the Philippines is guaranteed.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides:

Article 13. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Likewise, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which had been ratified by the Philippines, provides:

Article 12

1) Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.

2) Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.

3) The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (order public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.

4) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.

On the other hand, the respondents' principal argument is that the issue in this case involves a political question which is non-justiciable. According to the Solicitor General:

As petitioners couch it, the question involved is simply whether or not petitioners Ferdinand E. Marcos and his family have the right to travel and liberty of abode. Petitioners invoke these constitutional rightsin vacuowithout reference to attendant circumstances.

Respondents submit that in its proper formulation, the issue is whether or not petitioners Ferdinand E. Marcos and family have the right to return to the Philippines and reside here at this time in the face of the determination by the President that such return and residence will endanger national security and public safety.

It may be conceded that as formulated by petitioners, the question is not a political question as it involves merely a determination of what the law provides on the matter and application thereof to petitioners Ferdinand E. Marcos and family. But when the question is whether the two rights claimed by petitioners Ferdinand E. Marcos and family impinge on or collide with the more primordial and transcendental right of the State to security and safety of its nationals, the question becomes political and this Honorable Court can not consider it.

There are thus gradations to the question, to wit:

Do petitioners Ferdinand E. Marcos and family have the right to return to the Philippines and reestablish their residence here? This is clearly a justiciable question which this Honorable Court can decide.

Do petitioners Ferdinand E. Marcos and family have their right to return to the Philippines and reestablish their residence here even if their return and residence here will endanger national security and public safety? this is still a justiciable question which this Honorable Court can decide.

Is there danger to national security and public safety if petitioners Ferdinand E. Marcos and family shall return to the Philippines and establish their residence here? This is now a political question which this Honorable Court can not decide for it falls within the exclusive authority and competence of the President of the Philippines. [Memorandum for Respondents, pp. 9-11; Rollo, pp. 297-299.]

Respondents argue for the primacy of the right of the State to national security over individual rights. In support thereof, they cite Article II of the Constitution, to wit:

Section 4. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The Government may call upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal, military, or civil service.

Section 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.

Respondents also point out that the decision to ban Mr. Marcos and family from returning to the Philippines for reasons of national security and public safety has international precedents. Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, Anastacio Somoza Jr. of Nicaragua, Jorge Ubico of Guatemala, Fulgencio batista of Cuba, King Farouk of Egypt, Maximiliano Hernandez Martinez of El Salvador, and Marcos Perez Jimenez of Venezuela were among the deposed dictators whose return to their homelands was prevented by their governments. [See Statement of Foreign Affairs Secretary Raul S. Manglapus, quoted in Memorandum for Respondents, pp. 26-32; Rollo, pp. 314-319.]

The parties are in agreement that the underlying issue is one of the scope of presidential power and its limits. We, however, view this issue in a different light. Although we give due weight to the parties' formulation of the issues, we are not bound by its narrow confines in arriving at a solution to the controversy.

At the outset, we must state that it would not do to view the case within the confines of the right to travel and the import of the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court in the leading cases ofKent v. Dulles[357 U.S. 116, 78 SCt 1113, 2 L Ed. 2d 1204] andHaig v. Agee[453 U.S. 280, 101 SCt 2766, 69 L Ed. 2d 640) which affirmed the right to travel and recognized exceptions to the exercise thereof, respectively.

It must be emphasized that the individual right involved isnotthe right to travel from the Philippines to other countries or within the Philippines. These are what the right to travel would normally connote. Essentially, the right involved is the right to return to one's country, a totally distinct right under international law, independent from although related to the right to travel. Thus, the Universal Declaration of Humans Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights treat the right to freedom of movement and abode within the territory of a state, the right to leave a country, and the right to enter one's country as separate and distinct rights. The Declaration speaks of the "right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state" [Art. 13(l)] separately from the "right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." [Art. 13(2).] On the other hand, the Covenant guarantees the "right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence" [Art. 12(l)] and the right to "be free to leave any country, including his own." [Art. 12(2)] which rights may be restricted by such laws as "are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or enter qqqs own country" of which one cannot be "arbitrarily deprived." [Art. 12(4).] It would therefore be inappropriate to construe the limitations to the right to return to one's country in the same context as those pertaining to the liberty of abode and the right to travel.

The right to return to one's country is not among the rights specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, which treats only of the liberty of abode and the right to travel, but it is our well-considered view that the right to return may be considered, as a generally accepted principle of international law and, under our Constitution, is part of the law of the land [Art. II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution.] However, it is distinct and separate from the right to travel and enjoys a different protection under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, i.e., against being "arbitrarily deprived" thereof [Art. 12 (4).]

Thus, the rulings in the casesKent and Haigwhich refer to the issuance of passports for the purpose of effectively exercising the right to travel are not determinative of this case and are only tangentially material insofar as they relate to a conflict between executive action and the exercise of a protected right. The issue before the Court is novel and without precedent in Philippine, and even in American jurisprudence.

Consequently, resolution by the Court of the well-debated issue of whether or not there can be limitations on the right to travel in the absence of legislation to that effect is rendered unnecessary. An appropriate case for its resolution will have to be awaited.

Having clarified the substance of the legal issue, we find now a need to explain the methodology for its resolution. Our resolution of the issue will involve a two-tiered approach. We shall first resolve whether or not the President has the power under the Constitution, to bar the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines. Then, we shall determine, pursuant to the express power of the Court under the Constitution in Article VIII, Section 1, whether or not the President acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when she determined that the return of the Marcose's to the Philippines poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare and decided to bar their return.

Executive PowerThe 1987 Constitution has fully restored the separation of powers of the three great branches of government. To recall the words of Justice Laurel inAngara v. Electoral Commission[63 Phil. 139 (1936)], "the Constitution has blocked but with deft strokes and in bold lines, allotment of power to the executive, the legislative and the judicial departments of the government." [At 157.1 Thus, the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides that "[the legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines" Art VI, Sec. 11, "[t]he executive power shall bevested in the President of the Philippines" [Art. VII, Sec. 11, and "[te judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law" [Art. VIII, Sec. 1.] These provisions not only establish a separation of powers by actual division [Angara v. Electoral Commission,supra] but also confer plenary legislative, executive and judicial powers subject only to limitations provided in the Constitution. For as the Supreme Court inOcampo v. Cabangis[15 Phil. 626 (1910)] pointed out "a grant of the legislative power means a grant of all legislative power; and a grant of the judicial power means a grant of all the judicial power which may be exercised under the government." [At 631-632.1 If this can be said of the legislative power which is exercised by two chambers with a combined membership of more than two hundred members and of the judicial power which is vested in a hierarchy of courts, it can equally be said of the executive power which is vested in one official the President.

As stated above, the Constitution provides that "[t]he executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines." [Art. VII, Sec. 1]. However, it does not define what is meant by executive power" although in the same article it touches on the exercise of certain powers by the President,i.e., the power of control over all executive departments, bureaus and offices, the power to execute the laws, the appointing power, the powers under the commander-in-chief clause, the power to grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of Congress, the power to contract or guarantee foreign loans, the power to enter into treaties or international agreements, the power to submit the budget to Congress, and the power to address Congress [Art. VII, Sec. 14-23].

The inevitable question then arises: by enumerating certain powers of the President did the framers of the Constitution intend that the President shall exercise those specific powers and no other? Are these se enumerated powers the breadth and scope of "executive power"? Petitioners advance the view that the President's powers are limited to those specifically enumerated in the 1987 Constitution. Thus, they assert: "The President has enumerated powers, and what is not enumerated is impliedly denied to her.Inclusion unius est exclusio alterius[Memorandum for Petitioners, p. 4- Rollo p. 233.1 This argument brings to mind the institution of the U.S. Presidency after which ours is legally patterned.**

Corwin, in his monumental volume on the President of the United States grappled with the same problem. He said:

Article II is the most loosely drawn chapter of the Constitution. To those who think that a constitution ought to settle everything beforehand it should be a nightmare; by the same token, to those who think that constitution makers ought to leave considerable leeway for the future play of political forces, it should be a vision realized.

We encounter this characteristic of Article 11 in its opening words: "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." . . .. [The President: Office and Powers, 17871957, pp. 3-4.]

Reviewing how the powers of the U.S. President were exercised by the different persons who held the office from Washington to the early 1900's, and the swing from the presidency by commission to Lincoln's dictatorship, he concluded that "what the presidency is at any particular moment depends in important measure on who is President." [At 30.]

This view is shared by Schlesinger who wrote inThe Imperial Presidency:

For the American Presidency was a peculiarly personal institution. it remained of course, an agency of government subject to unvarying demands and duties no remained, of cas President. But, more than most agencies of government, it changed shape, intensity and ethos according to the man in charge. Each President's distinctive temperament and character, his values, standards, style, his habits, expectations, Idiosyncrasies, compulsions, phobias recast the WhiteHouse and pervaded the entire government. The executive branch, said Clark Clifford, was a chameleon, taking its color from the character and personality of the President. The thrust of the office, its impact on the constitutional order, therefore altered from President to President. Above all, the way each President understood it as his personal obligation to inform and involve the Congress, to earn and hold the confidence of the electorate and to render an accounting to the nation and posterity determined whether he strengthened or weakened the constitutional order. [At 212- 213.]

We do not say that the presidency is what Mrs. Aquino says it is or what she does but, rather, that the consideration of tradition and the development of presidential power under the different constitutions are essential for a complete understanding of the extent of and limitations to the President's powers under the 1987 Constitution. The 1935 Constitution created a strong President with explicitly broader powers than the U.S. President. The 1973 Constitution attempted to modify the system of government into the parliamentary type, with the President as a mere figurehead, but through numerous amendments, the President became even more powerful, to the point that he was also the de facto Legislature. The 1987 Constitution, however, brought back the presidential system of government and restored the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers by their actual distribution among three distinct branches of government with provision for checks and balances.

It would not be accurate, however, to state that "executive power" is the power to enforce the laws, for the President is head of state as well as head of government and whatever powers inhere in such positions pertain to the office unless the Constitution itself withholds it. Furthermore, the Constitution itself provides that the execution of the laws is only one of the powers of the President. It also grants the President other powers that do not involve the execution of any provision of law,e.g., his power over the country's foreign relations.

On these premises, we hold the view that although the 1987 Constitution imposes limitations on the exercise ofspecificpowers of the President, it maintains intact what is traditionally considered as within the scope of "executive power." Corollarily, the powers of the President cannot be said to be limited only to the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution. In other words, executive power is more than the sum of specific powers so enumerated,

It has been advanced that whatever power inherent in the government that is neither legislative nor judicial has to be executive. Thus, in the landmark decision ofSpringer v. Government of the Philippine Islands, 277 U.S. 189 (1928), on the issue of who between the Governor-General of the Philippines and the Legislature may vote the shares of stock held by the Government to elect directors in the National Coal Company and the Philippine National Bank, the U.S. Supreme Court, in upholding the power of the Governor-General to do so, said:

...Here the members of the legislature who constitute a majority of the "board" and "committee" respectively, are not charged with the performance of any legislative functions or with the doing of anything which is in aid of performance of any such functions by the legislature. Putting aside for the moment the question whether the duties devolved upon these members are vested by the Organic Act in the Governor-General, it is clear that they are not legislative in character, and still more clear that they are not judicial.The fact that they do not fall within the authority of either of these two constitutes logical ground for concluding that they do fall within that of the remaining one among which the powers of government are divided....[At 202-203; Emphasis supplied.]

We are not unmindful of Justice Holmes' strong dissent. But in his enduring words of dissent we find reinforcement for the view that it would indeed be a folly to construe the powers of a branch of government to embrace only what are specifically mentioned in the Constitution:

The great ordinances of the Constitution do not establish and divide fields of black and white. Even the more specific of them are found to terminate in a penumbra shading gradually from one extreme to the other. ....

xxx xxx xxx

It does not seem to need argument to show that however we may disguise it by veiling words we do not and cannot carry out the distinction between legislative and executive action with mathematical precision and divide the branches into watertight compartments, were it ever so desirable to do so, which I am far from believing that it is, or that the Constitution requires. [At 210- 211.]

The Power Involved

The Constitution declares among the guiding principles that "[t]he prime duty of theGovernment is to serve and protect the people" and that "[t]he maintenance of peace and order,the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy." [Art. II, Secs. 4 and 5.]

Admittedly, service and protection of the people, the maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essentially ideals to guide governmental action. But such does not mean that they are empty words. Thus, in the exercise of presidential functions, in drawing a plan of government, and in directing implementing action for these plans, or from another point of view, in making any decision as President of the Republic, the President has to consider these principles, among other things, and adhere to them.

Faced with the problem of whether or not the time is right to allow the Marcoses to return to the Philippines, the President is, under the Constitution, constrained to consider these basic principles in arriving at a decision. More than that, having sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution, the President has the obligationunder the Constitutionto protect the people, promote their welfare and advance the national interest. It must be borne in mind that the Constitution, aside from being an allocation of power is also a social contract whereby the people have surrendered their sovereign powers to the State for the common good. Hence, lest the officers of the Government exercising the powers delegated by the people forget and the servants of the people become rulers, the Constitution reminds everyone that "[s]overeignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them." [Art. II, Sec. 1.]

The resolution of the problem is made difficult because the persons who seek to return to the country are the deposed dictator and his family at whose door the travails of the country are laid and from whom billions of dollars believed to be ill-gotten wealth are sought to be recovered. The constitutional guarantees they invoke are neither absolute nor inflexible. For the exercise of even the preferred freedoms of speech and ofexpression, although couched in absolute terms, admits of limits and must be adjusted to the requirements of equally important public interests [Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 79690-707, October 7, 1981.]

To the President, the problem is one of balancing the general welfare and the common good against the exercise of rights of certain individuals. The power involved is the President's residual power to protect the general welfare of the people. It is founded on the duty of the President, as steward of the people. To paraphrase Theodore Roosevelt, it is not only the power of the President but also his duty to do anything not forbidden by the Constitution or the laws that the needs of the nation demand [See Corwin,supra, at 153]. It is a power borne by the President's duty to preserve and defend the Constitution. It also may be viewed as a power implicit in the President's duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed [seeHyman,The American President, where the author advances the view that an allowance of discretionary power is unavoidable in any government and is best lodged in the President].

More particularly, this case calls for the exercise of the President's powers as protector of the peace. RossiterThe American Presidency].The power of the President to keep the peace is not limited merely to exercising the commander-in-chief powers in times of emergency or to leading the State against external and internal threats to its existence. The President is not only clothed with extraordinary powers in times of emergency, but is also tasked with attending to the day-to-day problems of maintaining peace and order and ensuring domestic tranquility in times when no foreign foe appears on the horizon. Wide discretion, within the bounds of law, in fulfilling presidential duties in times of peace is not in any way diminished by the relative want of an emergency specified in the commander-in-chief provision. For in making the President commander-in-chief the enumeration of powers that follow cannot be said to exclude the President's exercising as Commander-in- Chief powers short of the calling of the armed forces, or suspending the privilege of the writ ofhabeas corpusor declaring martial law, in order to keep the peace, and maintain public order and security.

That the President has the power under the Constitution to bar the Marcose's from returning has been recognized by memembers of the Legislature, and is manifested by the Resolution proposed in the House of Representatives and signed by 103 of its members urging the President to allow Mr. Marcos to return to the Philippines "as a genuine unselfish gesture for true national reconciliation and as irrevocable proof of our collective adherence to uncompromising respect for human rights under the Constitution and our laws." [House Resolution No. 1342, Rollo, p. 321.1 The Resolution does not question the President's power to bar the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines, rather, it appeals to the President's sense of compassion to allow a man to come home to die in his country.

What we are saying in effect is that the request or demand of the Marcoses to be allowed to return to the Philippines cannot be considered in the light solely of the constitutional provisions guaranteeing liberty of abode and the right to travel, subject to certain exceptions, or of case law which clearly never contemplated situations even remotely similar to the present one. It must be treated as a matter that is appropriately addressed to those residual unstated powers of the President which are implicit in and correlative to the paramount duty residing in that office to safeguard and protect general welfare. In that context, such request or demand should submit to the exercise of a broader discretion on the part of the President to determine whether it must be granted or denied.

The Extent of ReviewUnder the Constitution, judicial power includes the duty to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government." [Art. VIII, Sec. 1] Given this wording, we cannot agree with the Solicitor General that the issue constitutes a political question which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court to decide.

The present Constitution limits resort to the political question doctrine and broadens the scope of judicial inquiry into areas which the Court, under previous constitutions, would have normally left to the political departments to decide. But nonetheless there remain issues beyond the Court's jurisdiction the determination of which is exclusively for the President, for Congress or for the people themselves through a plebiscite or referendum. We cannot, for example, question the President's recognition of a foreign government, no matter how premature or improvident such action may appear. We cannot set aside a presidential pardon though it may appear to us that the beneficiary is totally undeserving of the grant. Nor can we amend the Constitution under the guise of resolving a dispute brought before us because the power is reserved to the people.

There is nothing in the case before us that precludes our determination thereof on the political question doctrine. The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission cited by petitioners show that the framers intended to widen the scope of judicial review but they did not intend courts of justice to settle all actual controversies before them. When political questions are involved, the Constitution limits the determination to whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the official whose action is being questioned. If grave abuse is not established, the Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the official concerned and decide a matter which by its nature or by law is for the latter alone to decide. In this light, it would appear clear that the second paragraph of Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution, defining "judicial power," which specifically empowers the courts to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government, incorporates in the fundamental law the ruling inLansang v. Garcia[G.R. No. L-33964, December 11, 1971, 42 SCRA 4481 that:]

Article VII of the [1935] Constitution vests in the Executive the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus under specified conditions. Pursuant to the principle of separation of powers underlying our system of government, the Executive is supreme within his own sphere. However, the separation of powers, under the Constitution, is not absolute. What is more, it goes hand in hand with the system of checks and balances, under which the Executive is supreme, as regards the suspension of the privilege, but only if and when he acts within the sphere alloted to him by the Basic Law, and the authority to determine whether or not he has so acted is vested in the Judicial Department, which, in this respect, is, in turn, constitutionally supreme. In the exercise of such authority, the function of the Court is merely to check not to supplant the Executive, or to ascertain merely whether he has gone beyond the constitutional limits of his jurisdiction, not to exercise the power vested in him or to determine the wisdom of his act [At 479-480.]

Accordingly, the question for the Court to determine is whether or not there exist factual bases for the President to conclude that it was in the national interest to bar the return of the Marcoses to the Philippines. If such postulates do exist, it cannot be said that she has acted, or acts, arbitrarily or that she has gravely abused her discretion in deciding to bar their return.

We find that from the pleadings filed by the parties, from their oral arguments, and the facts revealed during the briefing in chambers by the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the National Security Adviser, wherein petitioners and respondents were represented, there exist factual bases for the President's decision..

The Court cannot close its eyes to present realities and pretend that the country is not besieged from within by a well-organized communist insurgency, a separatist movement in Mindanao, rightist conspiracies to grab power, urban terrorism, the murder with impunity of military men, police officers and civilian officials, to mention only a few. The documented history of the efforts of the Marcose's and their followers to destabilize the country, as earlier narrated in thisponenciabolsters the conclusion that the return of the Marcoses at this time would only exacerbate and intensify the violence directed against the State and instigate more chaos.

As divergent and discordant forces, the enemies of the State may be contained. The military establishment has given assurances that it could handle the threats posed by particular groups. But it is thecatalytic effectof the return of the Marcoses that may prove to be the proverbial final straw that would break the camel's back. With these before her, the President cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily and capriciously and whimsically in determining that the return of the Marcoses poses a serious threat to the national interest and welfare and in prohibiting their return.

It will not do to argue that if the return of the Marcoses to the Philippines will cause the escalation of violence against the State, that would be the time for the President to step in and exercise the commander-in-chief powers granted her by the Constitution to suppress or stamp out such violence. The State, acting through the Government, is not precluded from taking pre- emptive action against threats to its existence if, though still nascent they are perceived as apt to become serious and direct. Protection of the people is the essence of the duty of government. The preservation of the State the fruition of the people's sovereignty is an obligation in the highest order. The President, sworn to preserve and defend the Constitution and to see the faithful execution the laws, cannot shirk from that responsibility.

We cannot also lose sight of the fact that the country is only now beginning to recover from the hardships brought about by the plunder of the economy attributed to the Marcoses and their close associates and relatives, many of whom are still here in the Philippines in a position to destabilize the country, while the Government has barely scratched the surface, so to speak, in its efforts to recover the enormous wealth stashed away by the Marcoses in foreign jurisdictions. Then, We cannot ignore the continually increasing burden imposed on the economy by the excessive foreign borrowing during the Marcos regime, which stifles and stagnates development and is one of the root causes of widespread poverty and all its attendant ills. The resulting precarious state of our economy is of common knowledge and is easily within the ambit of judicial notice.

The President has determined that the destabilization caused by the return of the Marcoses would wipe away the gains achieved during the past few years and lead to total economic collapse. Given what is within our individual and common knowledge of the state of the economy, we cannot argue with that determination.

WHEREFORE, and it being our well-considered opinion that the President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in determining that the return of former President Marcos and his family at the present time and under present circumstances poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare and in prohibiting their return to the Philippines, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

2. Example of exercise Valid Exercise

2. Philconsa v. Enriquez- 235 SCRA 506 [1994]

G.R. No. 113105 August 19, 1994

PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION, EXEQUIEL B. GARCIA and A. GONZALES,petitioners,vs.HON. SALVADOR ENRIQUEZ, as Secretary of Budget and Management; HON. VICENTE T. TAN, as National Treasurer and COMMISSION ON AUDIT,respondents.

G.R. No. 113174 August 19, 1994

RAUL S. ROCO, as Member of the Philippine Senate, NEPTALI A. GONZALES, Chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Philippine Senate, and EDGARDO J. ANGARA, as President and Chief Executive of the Philippine Senate, all of whom also sue as taxpayers, in their own behalf and in representation of Senators HEHERSON ALVAREZ, AGAPITO A. AQUINO, RODOLFO G. BIAZON, JOSE D. LINA, JR., ERNESTO F. HERRERA, BLAS F. OPLE, JOHN H. OSMENA, GLORIA MACAPAGAL- ARROYO, VICENTE C. SOTTO III, ARTURO M. TOLENTINO, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, WIGBERTO E. TAADA and FREDDIE N. WEBB,petitioners,vs.THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, and THE NATIONAL TREASURER, THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, impleaded herein as an unwillingco-petitioner,respondents.

G.R. No. 113766 August 19, 1994

WIGBERTO E. TAADA and ALBERTO G. ROMULO, as Members of the Senate and as taxpayers, and FREEDOM FROM DEBT COALITION,petitioners,vs.HON. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR. in his capacity as Executive Secretary, HON. SALVADOR ENRIQUEZ, JR., in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management, HON. CARIDAD VALDEHUESA, in her capacity as National Treasurer, and THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT,respondents.

G.R. No. 113888 August 19, 1994

WIGBERTO E. TAADA and ALBERTO G. ROMULO, as Members of the Senate and as taxpayers,petitioners,vs.HON. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR., in his capacity as Executive Secretary, HON. SALVADOR ENRIQUEZ, JR., in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management, HON. CARIDAD VALDEHUESA, in her capacity as National Treasurer, and THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT,respondents.

Ramon R. Gonzales for petitioners in G.R. No. 113105.

Eddie Tamondong for petitioners in G.R. Nos. 113766 & 113888.

Roco, Buag, Kapunan, Migallos & Jardeleza for petitioners Raul S. Roco, Neptali A. Gonzales and Edgardo Angara.

Ceferino Padua Law Office fro intervenor Lawyers Against Monopoly and Poverty (Lamp).

QUIASON,J.:Once again this Court is called upon to rule on the conflicting claims of authority between the Legislative and the Executive in the clash of the powers of the purse and the sword. Providing the focus for the contest between the President and the Congress over control of the national budget are the four cases at bench. Judicial intervention is being sought by a group of concerned taxpayers on the claim that Congress and the President have impermissibly exceeded their respective authorities, and by several Senators on the claim that the President has committed grave abuse of discretion or acted without jurisdiction in the exercise of his veto power.

I

House Bill No. 10900, the General Appropriation Bill of 1994 (GAB of 1994), was passed and approved by both houses of Congress on December 17, 1993. As passed, it imposed conditions and limitations on certain items of appropriations in the proposed budget previously submitted by the President. It also authorized members of Congress to propose and identify projects in the "pork barrels" allotted to them and to realign their respective operating budgets.

Pursuant to the procedure on the passage and enactment of bills as prescribed by the Constitution, Congress presented the said bill to the President for consideration and approval.

On December 30, 1993, the President signed the bill into law, and declared the same to have become Republic Act No. 7663, entitled "AN ACT APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES FROM JANUARY ONE TO DECEMBER THIRTY ONE, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND NINETY-FOUR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES" (GAA of 1994). On the same day, the President delivered his Presidential Veto Message, specifying the provisions of the bill he vetoed and on which he imposed certain conditions.

No step was taken in either House of Congress to override the vetoes.

In G.R. No. 113105, the Philippine Constitution Association, Exequiel B. Garcia and Ramon A. Gonzales as taxpayers, prayed for a writ of prohibition to declare as unconstitutional and void: (a) Article XLI on the Countrywide Development Fund, the special provision in Article I entitled Realignment of Allocation for Operational Expenses, and Article XLVIII on the Appropriation for Debt Service or the amount appropriated under said Article XLVIII in excess of the P37.9 Billion allocated for the Department of Education, Culture and Sports; and (b) the veto of the President of the Special Provision ofArticle XLVIII of the GAA of 1994 (Rollo, pp. 88-90, 104-105)

In G.R. No. 113174, sixteen members of the Senate led by Senate President Edgardo J. Angara, Senator Neptali A. Gonzales, the Chairman of the Committee on Finance, and Senator Raul S. Roco, sought the issuance of the writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the Executive Secretary, the Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management, and the National Treasurer.

Suing as members of the Senate and taxpayers, petitioners question: (1) the constitutionality of the conditions imposed by the President in the items of the GAA of 1994: (a) for the Supreme Court, (b) Commission on Audit (COA), (c) Ombudsman, (d) Commission on Human Rights (CHR), (e) Citizen Armed Forces Geographical Units (CAFGU'S) and (f) State Universities and Colleges (SUC's); and (2) the constitutionality of the veto of the special provision in the appropriation for debt service.

In G.R. No. 113766, Senators Alberto G. Romulo and Wigberto Taada (a co-petitioner in G.R. No. 113174), together with the Freedom from Debt Coalition, a non-stock domestic corporation, sought the issuance of the writs of prohibition and mandamus against the Executive Secretary, the Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management, the National Treasurer, and the COA.

Petitioners Taada and Romulo sued as members of the Philippine Senate and taxpayers, while petitioner Freedom from Debt Coalition sued as a taxpayer. They challenge the constitutionality of the Presidential veto of the special provision in the appropriations for debt service and the automatic appropriation of funds therefor.

In G.R. No. 11388, Senators Taada and Romulo sought the issuance of the writs of prohibition and mandamus against the same respondents in G.R. No. 113766. In this petition, petitioners contest the constitutionality of: (1) the veto on four special provision added to items in the GAA of 1994 for the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH); and (2) the conditions imposed by the President in the implementation of certain appropriations for the CAFGU's, the DPWH, and the National Housing Authority (NHA).

Petitioners also sought the issuance of temporary restraining orders to enjoin respondents Secretary of Budget and Management, National Treasurer and COA from enforcing the questioned provisions of the GAA of 1994, but the Court declined to grant said provisional reliefs on the time- honored principle of according the presumption of validity to statutes and the presumption of regularity to official acts.

In view of the importance and novelty of most of the issues raised in the four petitions, the Court invited former Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando and former Associate Justice Irene Cortes to submit their respective memoranda asAmicus curiae,which they graciously did.

II

Locus StandiWhen issues of constitutionality are raised, the Court can exercise its power of judicial review only if the following requisites are compresent: (1) the existence of an actual and appropriate case; (2) a personal and substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional question; (3) the exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the constitutional question is thelis motaof the case (Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform, 192 SCRA 51 [1990]; Dumlao v. Commission on Elections, 95 SCRA 392 [1980]; People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 56 [1937]).

While the Solicitor General did not question thelocus standiof petitioners in G.R. No. 113105, he claimed that the remedy of the Senators in the other petitions is political (i.e., to override the vetoes) in effect saying that they do not have the requisite legal standing to bring the suits.

The legal standing of the Senate, as an institution, was recognized inGonzales v.Macaraig, Jr.,191 SCRA 452 (1990). In said case, 23 Senators, comprising the entire membership of the Upper House of Congress, filed a petition to nullify the presidential veto of Section 55 of the GAA of 1989. The filing of the suit was authorized by Senate Resolution No. 381, adopted on February 2, 1989, and which reads as follows:

Authorizing and Directing the Committee on Finance to Bring in the Name of the Senate of the Philippines the Proper Suit with the Supreme Court of the Philippines contesting the Constitutionality of the Veto by the President of Special and General Provisions, particularly Section 55, of the General Appropriation Bill of 1989 (H.B. No. 19186) and For Other Purposes.

In the United States, the legal standing of a House of Congress to sue has been recognized (United States v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 551 F. 2d 384, 391 [1976]; Notes:Congressional Access To The Federal Courts,90 Harvard Law Review 1632 [1977]).

While the petition in G.R. No. 113174 was filed by 16 Senators, including the Senate President and the Chairman of the Committee on Finance, the suit was not authorized by the Senate itself. Likewise, the petitions inG.R. Nos. 113766 and 113888 were filed without an enabling resolution for the purpose.

Therefore, the question of the legal standing of petitioners in the three cases becomes a preliminary issue before this Court can inquire into the validity of the presidential veto and the conditions for the implementation of some items in the GAA of 1994.

We rule that a member of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives for that matter, has the legal standing to question the validity of a presidential veto or a condition imposed on an item in an appropriation bill.

Where the veto is claimed to have been made without or in excess of the authority vested on the President by the Constitution, the issue of an impermissible intrusion of the Executive into the domain of the Legislature arises (Notes:Congressional Standing ToChallenge Executive Action,122 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1366 [1974]).

To the extent the power of Congress are impaired, so is the power of each member thereof, since his office confers a right to participate in the exercise of the powers of that institution (Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 [1939]; Holtzman v. Schlesinger, 484 F. 2d 1307 [1973]).

An act of the Executive which injures the institution of Congress causes a derivative but nonetheless substantial injury, which can be questioned by a member of Congress (Kennedy v. Jones, 412 F. Supp. 353 [1976]). In such a case, any member of Congress can have a resort to the courts.

Former Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando, asAmicus Curiae, noted:

This is, then, the clearest case of the Senate as a whole or individual Senators as such having a substantial interest in the question at issue. It could likewise be said that there was the requisite injury to their rights as Senators. It would then be futile to raise anylocus standiissue. Any intrusion into the domain appertaining to the Senate is to be resisted. Similarly, if the situation were reversed, and it is the Executive Branch that could allege a transgression, its officials could likewise file the corresponding action. What cannot be denied is that a Senator has standing to maintain inviolate the prerogatives, powers and privileges vested by the Constitution in his office (Memorandum, p. 14).

It is true that the Constitution provides a mechanism for overriding a veto (Art. VI, Sec. 27 [1]). Said remedy, however, is available only when the presidential veto is based on policy or political considerations but not when the veto is claimed to beultra vires. In the latter case, it becomes the duty of the Court to draw the dividing line where the exercise of executive power ends and the bounds of legislative jurisdiction begin.

III

G.R.No.1131051. Countrywide Development FundArticle XLI of the GAA of 1994 sets up a Countrywide Development Fund of P2,977,000,000.00 to "be used for infrastructure, purchase of ambulances and computers and other priority projects and activities and credit facilities to qualified beneficiaries." Said Article provides:

COUNTRYWIDE DEVELOPMENT FUND

For Fund requirements of countrywidedevelopment projects P 2,977,000,000

New Appropriations, by PurposeCurrent Operating Expenditures

A. PURPOSEPersonal Maintenance Capital TotalServices and Other OutlaysOperatingExpenses

1. For CountrywideDevelopments Projects P250,000,000 P2,727,000,000 P2,977,000,000

TOTAL NEWAPPROPRIATIONS P250,000,000 P2,727,000,000 P2,977,000,000

Special Provisions

1. Use and Release of Funds. The amount herein appropriated shall be used for infrastructure, purchase of ambulances and computers and other priority projects and activities, and credit facilities to qualified beneficiaries as proposed and identified by officials concerned according to the following allocations: Representatives, P12,500,000 each; Senators, P18,000,000 each; Vice-President, P20,000,000;PROVIDED,That, the said credit facilities shall be constituted as a revolving fund to be administered by a government financial institution (GFI) as a trust fund for lending operations. Prior years releases to local government units and national government agencies for this purpose shall be turned over to the government financial institution which shall be the sole administrator of credit facilities released from this fund.

The fund shall be automatically released quarterly by way of Advice of Allotments and Notice of Cash Allocation directly to the assigned implementing agency not later than five (5) days after the beginning of each quarter upon submission of the list of projects and activities by the officials concerned.

2. Submission of Quarterly Reports. The Department of Budget and Management shall submit within thirty (30) days after the end of each quarter a report to the Senate Committee on Finance and the House Committee on Appropriations on the releases made from this Fund. The report shall include the listing of the projects, locations, implementing agencies and the endorsing officials (GAA of 1994, p. 1245).

Petitioners claim that the power given to the members of Congress to propose and identify the projects and activities to be funded by the Countrywide Development Fund is an encroachment by the legislature on executive power, since said power in an appropriation act in implementation of a law. They argue that the proposal and identification of the projects do not involve the making of laws or the repeal and amendment thereof, the only function given to the Congress by the Constitution (Rollo, pp. 78- 86).

Under the Constitution, the spending power called by James Madison as "the power of the purse," belongs to Congress, subject only to the veto power of the President. The President may propose the budget, but still the final say on the matter of appropriations is lodged in the Congress.

The power of appropriation carries with it the power to specify the project or activity to be funded under the appropriation law. It can be as detailed and as broad as Congress wants it to be.

The Countrywide Development Fund is explicit that it shall be used "for infrastructure, purchase of ambulances and computers and other priority projects and activities and credit facilities to qualified beneficiaries . . ." It was Congress itself that determined the purposes for the appropriation.

Executive function under the Countrywide Development Fund involves implementation of the priority projects specified in the law.

The authority given to the members of Congress is only to propose and identify projects to be implemented by the President. Under Article XLI of the GAA of 1994, the President must perforce examine whether the proposals submitted by the members of Congress fall within the specific items of expenditures for which the Fund was set up, and if qualified, he next determines whether they are in line with other projects planned for the locality. Thereafter, if the proposed projects qualify for funding under the Funds, it is the President who shall implement them. In short, the proposals and identifications made by the members of Congress are merely recommendatory.

The procedure of proposing and identifying by members of Congress of particular projects or activities under Article XLI of the GAA of 1994 is imaginative as it is innovative.

The Constitution is a framework of a workable government and its interpretation must take into account the complexities, realities and politics attendant to the operation of the political branches of government. Prior to the GAA of 1991, there was an uneven allocation of appropriations for the constituents of the members of Congress, with the members close to the Congressional leadership or who hold cards for "horse-trading," getting more than their less favored colleagues. The members of Congress also had to reckon with an unsympathetic President, who could exercise his veto power to cancel from the appropriation bill a pet project of a Representative or Senator.

The Countrywide Development Fund attempts to make equal the unequal. It is also a recognition that individual members of Congress, far more than the President and their congressional colleagues are likely to be knowledgeable about the needs of their respective constituents and the priority to be given each project.

2. Realignment of Operating ExpensesUnder the GAA of 1994, the appropriation for the Senate is P472,000,000.00 of which P464,447,000.00 is appropriated for current operating expenditures, while the appropriation for the House of Representatives is P1,171,924,000.00 of which P1,165,297,000.00 is appropriated for current operating expenditures (GAA of 1994, pp. 2, 4, 9, 12).

The 1994 operating expenditures for the Senate are as follows:

Personal Services

Salaries, Permanent 153,347Salaries/Wage, Contractual/Emergency 6,870Total Salaries and Wages 160,217=======

Other Compensation

Step Increments 1,073Honoraria and Commutable Allowances 3,731Compensation Insurance Premiums 1,579Pag-I.B.I.G. Contributions 1,184Medicare Premiums 888Bonus and Cash Gift 14,791Terminal Leave Benefits 2,000Personnel Economic Relief Allowance 10,266Additional Compensation of P500 under A.O. 53 11,130Others 57,173Total Other Compensation 103,81501 Total Personal Services 264,032=======

Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses

02 Traveling Expenses 32,84103 Communication Services 7,66604 Repair and Maintenance of Government Facilities 1,22005 Repair and Maintenance of Government Vehicles 31806 Transportation Services 12807 Supplies and Materials 20,18908 Rents 24,58414 Water/Illumination and Power 6,56115 Social Security Benefits and Other Claims 3,27017 Training and Seminars Expenses 2,22518 Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses 9,36023 Advertising and Publication 24 Fidelity Bonds and Insurance Premiums 1,32529 Other Services 89,778Total Maintenance and Other Operating Expenditures 200,415Total Current Operating Expenditures 464,447=======

(GAA of 1994, pp. 3-4)

The 1994 operating expenditures for the House of Representatives are as follows:

Personal Services

Salaries, Permanent 261,557Salaries/Wages, Contractual/Emergency 143,643Total Salaries and Wages 405,200=======

Other Compensation

Step Increments 4,312Honoraria and Commutable Allowances 4,764Compensation Insurance Premiums 1,159Pag-I.B.I.G. Contributions 5,231Medicare Premiums 2,281

Bonus and Cash Gift 35,669Terminal Leave Benefits 29Personnel Economic Relief Allowance 21,150Additional Compensation of P500 under A.O. 53 Others 106,140Total Other Compensation 202,86301 Total Personal Services 608,063=======

Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses

02 Traveling Expenses 139,61103 Communication Services 22,51404 Repair and Maintenance of Government Facilities 5,11605 Repair and Maintenance of Government Vehicles 1,86306 Transportation Services 17807 Supplies and Materials 55,24810 Grants/Subsidies/Contributions 94014 Water/Illumination and Power 14,45815 Social Security Benefits and Other Claims 32517 Training and Seminars Expenses 7,23618 Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses 14,47420 Anti-Insurgency/Contingency Emergency Expenses 9,40023 Advertising and Publication 24224 Fidelity Bonds and Insurance Premiums 1,42029 Other Services 284,209Total Maintenance and Other Operating Expenditures 557,234Total Current Operating Expenditures 1,165,297=======

(GAA of 1994, pp. 11-12)

The Special Provision Applicable to the Congress of the Philippines provides:

4. Realignment of Allocation for Operational Expenses. A member of Congress may realign his allocation for operational expenses to any other expenses category provide the total of said allocation is not exceeded. (GAA of 1994, p. 14).

The appropriation for operating expenditures for each House is further divided into expenditures for salaries, personal services, other compensation benefits, maintenance expenses and other operating expenses. In turn, each member of Congress is allotted for his own operating expenditure a proportionate share of the appropriation for the House to which he belongs. If he does not spend for one items of expense, the provision in question allows him to transfer his allocation in said item to another item of expense.

Petitioners assail the special provision allowing a member of Congress to realign his allocation for operational expenses to any other expense category (Rollo, pp. 82-92), claiming that this practice is prohibited by Section 25(5), Article VI of the Constitution. Said section provides:

No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations: however, the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.

The proviso of said Article of the Constitution grants the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives the power to augment items in an appropriation act for their respective offices from savings in other items of their appropriations, whenever there is a law authorizing such augmentation.

The special provision on realignment of the operating expenses of members of Congress is authorized by Section 16 of the General Provisions of the GAA of 1994, which provides:

Expenditure Components. Except by act of the Congress of the Philippines, no change or modification shall be made in the expenditure items authorized in this Act and other appropriation laws unless in casesof augmentations from savings in appropriations as authorized under Section 25(5) of Article VI of the Constitution (GAA of 1994, p. 1273).

Petitioners argue that the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, but not the individual members of Congress are the ones authorized to realign the savings as appropriated.

Under the Special Provisions applicable to the Congress of the Philippines, the members of Congress only determine the necessity of the realignment of the savings in the allotments for their operating expenses. They are in the best position to do so because they are the ones who know whether there are savings available in some items and whether there are deficiencies in other items of their operating expenses that need augmentation. However, it is the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as the case may be, who shall approve the realignment. Before giving their stamp of approval, these two officials will have to see to it that:

(1) The funds to be realigned or transferred are actually savings in the items of expenditures from which the same are to be taken; and

(2) The transfer or realignment is for the purposes of augmenting the items of expenditure to which said transfer or realignment is to be made.

3. Highest Priority for Debt ServiceWhile Congress appropriated P86,323,438,000.00 for debt service (Article XLVII of the GAA of 1994), it appropriated only P37,780,450,000.00 for the Department of Education Culture and Sports. Petitioners urged that Congress cannot give debt service the highest priority in the GAA of 1994 (Rollo, pp. 93-94) because under the Constitution it should be education that is entitled to the highest funding. They invoke Section 5(5), Article XIV thereof, which provides:

(5) The State shall assign the highest budgetary priority to education and ensure that teaching will attract and retain its rightful share of the best available talents through adequate remuneration and other means of job satisfaction and fulfillment.

This issue was raised inGuingona, Jr.v.Carague,196 SCRA 221 (1991), where this Court held that Section 5(5), Article XIV of the Constitution, is merely directory, thus:

While it is true that under Section 5(5), Article XIV of the Constitution, Congress is mandated to "assign the highest budgetary priority to education" in order to "insure that teaching will attract and retain its rightful share of the best available talents through adequate remuneration and other means of job satisfaction and fulfillment," it does not thereby follow that the hands of Congress are so hamstrung as to deprive it the power to respond to the imperatives of the national interest and for the attainment of other state policies or objectives.

As aptly observed by respondents, since 1985, the budget for education has tripled to upgrade and improve the facility of the public school system. The compensation of teachers has been doubled. The amount of P29,740,611,000.00 set aside for the Department of Education, Culture and Sports under the General Appropriations Act (R.A. No. 6381), is the highest budgetary allocation among all department budgets. This is a clear compliance with the aforesaid constitutional mandate according highest priority to education.

Having faithfully complied therewith, Congress is certainly not without any power, guided only by its good judgment, to provide an appropriation, that can reasonably service our enormous debt, the greater portion of which was inherited from the previous administration. It is not only a matter of honor and to protect the credit standing of the country. More especially, the very survival of our economy is at stake. Thus, if in the process Congress appropriated an amount for debt service bigger than the share allocated to education, the Court finds and so holds that said appropriation cannot be thereby assailed as unconstitutional.

G.R.No.113105G.R.No.113174Veto of Provision on Debt Ceiling

The Congress added a Special Provision to Article XLVIII (Appropriations for Debt Service) of the GAA of 1994 which provides:

Special Provisions

1. Use of the Fund. The appropriation authorized herein shall be used for payment of principal and interest of foreign and domestic indebtedness;PROVIDED,That any payment in excess of the amount herein appropriated shall be subject to the approval of the President of the Philippines with the concurrence of the Congress of the Philippines;PROVIDED,FURTHER,That in no case shall this fund be used to pay for the liabilities of the Central Bank Board of Liquidators.

2. Reporting Requirement. The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas and the Department of Finance shall submit a quarterly report of actual foreign and domestic debt service payments to the House Committee on Appropriations and Senate Finance Committee within one (1) month after each quarter (GAA of 1944, pp. 1266).

The President vetoed the first Special Provision, without vetoing the P86,323,438,000.00 appropriation for debt service in said Article. According to the President's Veto Message:

IV. APPROPRIATIONS FOR DEBT SERVICE

I would like to emphasize that I concur fully with the desire of Congress to reduce the debt burden by decreasing the appropriation for debt service as well as the inclusion of the Special Provision quoted below. Nevertheless, I believe that this debt reduction scheme cannot be validly done through the 1994 GAA. This must be addressed by revising our debt policy by way of innovative and comprehensive debt reduction programs conceptualized within the ambit of the Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan.

Appropriations for payment of public debt, whether foreign or domestic, are automatically appropriated pursuant to the Foreign Borrowing Act and Section 31 of P.D. No. 1177 as reiterated under Section 26, Chapter 4, Book VI of E.O. No. 292, the Administrative Code of 1987. I wish to emphasize that the constitutionality of such automatic provisions on debt servicing has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of "Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr., and Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. v. Hon. Guillermo N. Carague, in his capacity as Secretary of Budget and Management, et al.," G.R. No. 94571, dated April 22, 1991.

I am, therefore vetoing the following special provision for the reason that the GAA is not the appropriate legislative measure to amend the provisions of the Foreign Borrowing Act, P.D. No. 1177 and E.O. No. 292:

Use of the Fund. The appropriation authorized herein shall be used for payment of principal and interest of foreign and domestic indebtedness:PROVIDED,That any payment in excess of the amount herein appropriated shall be subject to the approval of the President of the Philippines with the concurrence of the Congress of the Philippines:PROVIDED,FURTHER,That in no case shall this fund be used to pay for the liabilities of the Central Bank Board of Liquidators (GAA of 1994, p. 1290).

Petitioners claim that the President cannot veto the Special Provision on the appropriation for debt service without vetoing the entire amount of P86,323,438.00 for said purpose (Rollo, G.R. No. 113105, pp. 93-98;Rollo, G.R. No. 113174, pp. 16-18). The Solicitor General counterposed that the Special Provision did not relate to the item of appropriation for debt service and could therefore be the subject of an item veto (Rollo, G.R. No. 113105, pp. 54-60;Rollo, G.R. No. 113174, pp. 72-82).

This issue is a mere rehash of the one put to rest inGonzales v.Macaraig, Jr.,191 SCRA 452 (1990). In that case, the issue was stated by the Court, thus:

The fundamental issue raised is whether or not the veto by the President of Section 55 of the 1989 Appropriations Bill (Section 55FY '89), and subsequently of its counterpart Section 16 of the 1990 Appropriations Bill (Section 16 FY '90), is unconstitutional and without effect.

The Court re-stated the issue, just so there would not be any misunderstanding about it, thus:

The focal issue for resolution is 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?

The bases of the petition inGonzales,which are similar to those invoked in the present case, are stated as follows:

In essence, petitioners' cause is anchored on the following grounds: (1) the President's line-veto power as regards appropriation bills is limited to item/s and does not cover provision/s; therefore, she exceeded her authority when she vetoed Section 55 (FY '89) and Section 16 (FY '90) which are provisions; (2) when the President objects to a provision of an appropriation bill, she cannot exercise the item-veto power but should veto the entire bill; (3) the item-veto power does not carry with it the power to strike out conditions or restrictions for that would be legislation, in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers; and (4) the power of augmentation in Article VI, Section 25 [5] of the 1987 Constitution, has to be provided for by law and, therefore, Congress is also vested with the prerogative to impose restrictions on the exercise of that power.

The restrictive interpretation urged by petitioners that the President may not veto a provision without vetoing the entire bill not only disregards the basic principle that a distinct and severable part of a bill may be the subject of a separate veto but also overlooks the Constitutional mandate that any provision in the general appropriations bill shall relate specifically to some particular appropriation therein and that any such provision shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it relates (1987 Constitution, Article VI, Section 25 [2]). In other words, in the true sense of the term, a provision in an Appropriations Bill is limited in its operation to some particular appropriation to which it relates, and does not relate to the entire bill.

The Court went one step further and ruled that even assumingarguendothat "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 President's veto power.

The Court, citingHenry v.Edwards,La., 346 So. 2d 153 (1977), said that Congress cannot include in a general appropriations bill matters that should be more properly enacted in separate legislation, and if it 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.

It is readily apparent that the Special Provision applicable to the appropriation for debt service insofar as it refers to funds in excess of the amount appropriated in the bill, is an "inappropriate" provision referring to funds other than the P86,323,438,000.00 appropriated in the General Appropriations Act of 1991.

Likewise the vetoed provision is clearly an attempt to repeal Section 31 of P.D. No. 1177 (Foreign Borrowing Act) and E.O. No. 292, and to reverse the debt payment policy. As held by the Court inGonzales,the repeal of these laws should be done in a separate law, not in the appropriations law.

The Court will indulge every intendment in favor of the constitutionality of a veto, the same as it will presume the constitutionality of an act of Congress (Texas Co. v. State, 254 P. 1060; 31 Ariz, 485, 53 A.L.R. 258 [1927]).

The veto power, while exercisable by the President, is actually a part of the legislative process (Memorandum of Justice Irene Cortes asAmicusCuriae,pp. 3-7). That is why it is found in Article VI on the Legislative Department rather than in Article VII on the Executive Department in the Constitution. There is, therefore, sound basis to indulge in the presumption of validity of a veto. The burden shifts on those questioning the validity thereof to show that its use is a violation of the Constitution.

Under his general veto power, the President has to veto the entire bill, not merely parts thereof (1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 27[1]). The exception to the general veto power is the power given to the President to veto any particular item or items in a general appropriations bill (1987 Constitution, Art. VI,Sec. 27[2]). In so doing, the President must veto the entire item.

A general appropriations bill is a special type of legislation, whose content is limited to specified sums of money dedicated to a specific purpose or a separate fiscal unit (Beckman, The Item Veto Power of the Executive,31 Temple Law Quarterly 27 [1957]).

The item veto was first introduced by the Organic Act of the Philippines passed by the U.S. Congress on August 29, 1916. The concept was adopted from some State Constitutions.

Cognizant of the legislative practice of inserting provisions, including conditions, restrictions and limitations, to items in appropriations bills, the Constitutional Convention added the following sentence to Section 20(2), Article VI of the 1935 Constitution:

. . . When a provision of an appropriation bill affect one or more items of the same, the President cannot veto the provision without at the same time vetoing the particular item or items to which it relates . . . .

In short, under the 1935 Constitution, the President was empowered to veto separately not only items in an appropriations bill but also "provisions".

While the 1987 Constitution did not retain the aforementioned sentence added to Section 11(2) of Article VI of the 1935 Constitution, it included the following provision:

No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriation therein. Any such provision or enactment shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it relates (Art. VI, Sec. 25[2]).

InGonzales,we made it clear that the omission of that sentence of Section 16(2) of the 1935 Constitution in the 1987 Constitution should not be interpreted to mean the disallowance of the power of the President to veto a "provision".

As the Constitution is explicit that the provision which Congress can include in an appropriations bill must "relate specifically to some particular appropriation therein" and "be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it relates," it follows that any provision which does not relate to any particular item, or which extends in its operation beyond an item of appropriation, is considered "an inappropriate provision" which can be vetoed separately from an item. Also to be included in the category of "inappropriate provisions" are unconstitutional provisions and provisions which are intended to amend other laws, because clearly these kind of laws have no place in an appropriations bill. These are matters of general legislation more appropriately dealt with in separate enactments. Former Justice Irene Cortes, asAmicus Curiae, commented that Congress cannot by law establish conditions for and regulate the exercise of powers of the President given by the Constitution for that would be an unconstitutional intrusion into executive prerogative.

The doctrine of "inappropriate provision" was well elucidated inHenry v.Edwards, supra.,thus:

Just as the President may not use his item-veto to usurp constitutional powers conferred on the legislature, neither can the legislature deprive the Governor of the constitutional powers conferred on him as chief executive officer of the state by including in a general appropriation bill matters more properly enacted in separate legislation. The Governor's constitutional power to veto bills of general legislation . . . cannot be abridged by the careful placement of such measures in a general appropriation bill, thereby forcing the Governor to choose between approving unacceptable substantive legislation or vetoing "items" of expenditures essential to the operation of government.The legislature cannot by location of a bill give it immunity from executive veto.Nor can it circumvent the Governor's veto power over substantive legislation by artfully drafting general law measures so that they appear to be true conditions or limitations on an item of appropriation. Otherwise, the legislature would be permitted to impair the constitutional responsibilities and functions of a co-equal branch of government in contravention of the separation of powers doctrine . . . We are no more willing to allow the legislature to use its appropriation power to infringe on the Governor's constitutional right to veto matters of substantive legislation than we are to allow the Governor to encroach on the Constitutional powers of the legislature. In order to avoid this result, we hold that,when the legislature inserts inappropriate provisions in a general appropriation bill, such provisions must be treated as"items"for purposes of the Governor's item veto power over general appropriation bills.

xxx xxx xxx

. . . Legislative control cannot be exercised in such a manner as to encumber the general appropriation bill with veto-proof "logrolling measures", special interest provisions which could not succeed if separately enacted, or "riders", substantive pieces of legislation incorporated in a bill to insure passage without veto . . . (Emphasis supplied).

Petitioners contend that grantingarguendothat the veto of the Special Provision on the ceiling for debt payment is valid, the President cannot automatically appropriate funds for debt payment without complying with the conditions for automatic appropriation under the provisions of R.A. No. 4860 as amended by P.D. No. 81 and the provisions of P.D. No. 1177 as amended by the Administrative Code of 1987 and P.D. No. 1967 (Rollo, G.R. No. 113766, pp. 9-15).

Petitioners cannot anticipate that the President will not faithfully execute the laws. The writ of prohibition will not issue on the fear that official actions will be done in contravention of the laws.

The President vetoed the entire paragraph one of the Special Provision of the item on debt service, including the provisions that the appropriation authorized in said item "shall be used for payment of the principal and interest of foreign and domestic indebtedness" and that "in no case shall this fund be used to pay for the liabilities of the Central Bank Board of Liquidators." These provisions are germane to and have a direct connection with the item on debt service. Inherent in the power of appropriation is the power to specify how the money shall be spent (Henry v. Edwards, LA, 346 So., 2d., 153). The said provisos, being appropriate provisions, cannot be vetoed separately. Hence the item veto of said provisions is void.

We reiterate, in order to obviate any misunderstanding, that we are sustaining the veto of the Special Provision of the item on debt service only with respect to the proviso therein requiring that "any payment in excess of the amount herein, appropriated shall be subject to the approval of the President of the Philippines with the concurrence of the Congress of the Philippines . . ."

G.R.NO.113174G.R.NO.113766G.R.NO.113881. Veto of provisions for revolving funds of SUC's.

In the appropriation for State Universities and Colleges (SUC's), the President vetoed special provisions which authorize the use of income and the creation, operation and maintenance of revolving funds. The Special Provisions vetoed are the following:

(H. 7) West Visayas State University

Equal Sharing of Income. Income earned by the University subject to Section 13 of the special provisions applicable to all State Universities and Colleges shall be equally shared by the University and the University Hospital (GAA of 1994, p. 395).

xxx xxx xxx

(J. 3) Leyte State College

Revolving Fund for the Operation of LSC House and Human Resources Development Center (HRDC). The income of Leyte State College derived from the operation of its LSC House and HRDC shall be constituted into a Revolving Fund to be deposited in an authorized government depository bank for the operational expenses of these projects/services. The net income of the Revolving Fund at the end of the year shall be remitted to the National Treasury and shall accrue to the General Fund. The implementing guidelines shall be issued by the Department of Budget and Management (GAA of 1994, p. 415).

The vetoed Special Provisions applicable to all SUC's are the following:

12. Use of Income from Extension Services. State Universities and Colleges are authorized to use their income from their extension services. Subject to the approval of the Board of Regents and the approval of a special budget pursuant to Sec. 35, Chapter 5, Book VI of E.O.No. 292, such income shall be utilized solely for faculty development, instructional materials and work study program (GAA of 1994, p. 490).

xxx xxx xxx

13. Income of State Universities and Colleges. The income of State Universities and Colleges derived from tuition fees and other sources as may be imposed by governing boards other than those accruing to revolving funds created under LOI Nos. 872 and 1026 and those authorized to be recorded as trust receipts pursuant to Section 40, Chapter 5, Book VI of E.O. No. 292 shall be deposited with the National Treasury and recorded as a Special Account in the General Fund pursuant to P.D. No. 1234 and P.D. No. 1437 for the use of the institution, subject to Section 35, Chapter 5, Book VI of E.O. No. 292LPROVIDED,That disbursements from the Special Account shall not exceed the amount actually earned and deposited:PROVIDED,FURTHER,That a cash advance on such income may be allowed State half of income actually realized during the preceding year and this cash advance shall be charged against income actually earned during the budget year:AND PROVIDED, FINALLY,That in no case shall such funds be used to create positions, nor for payment of salaries, wages or allowances, except as may be specifically approved by the Department of Budge and Management for income-producing activities, or to purchase equipment or books, without the prior approval of the President of the Philippines pursuant to Letter of Implementation No. 29.

All collections of the State Universities and Colleges for fees, charges and receipts intended for private recipient units, including private foundations affiliated with these institutions shall be duly acknowledged with official receipts and deposited as a trust receipt before said income shall be subject to Section 35, Chapter 5, Book VI of E.O. No. 292(GAA of 1994, p. 490).

The President gave his reason for the veto thus:

Pursuant to Section 65 of the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines, Section 44, Chapter 5, Book VI of E.O. No. 292, s. 1987 and Section 22, Article VII of the Constitution, all income earned by all Government offices and agencies shall accrue to the General Fund of the Government in line with the One Fund Policy enunciated by Section 29 (1), Article VI and Section 22, Article VII of the Constitution. Likewise, the creation and establishment of revolving funds shall be authorized by substantive law pursuant to Section 66 of the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines and Section 45, Chapter 5, Book VI of E.O. No. 292.

Notwithstanding the aforementioned provisions of the Constitution and existing law, I have noted the proliferation of special provisions authorizing the use of agency income as well as the creation, operation and maintenance of revolving funds.

I would like to underscore the facts that such income were already considered as integral part of the revenue and financing sources of the National Expenditure Program which I previously submitted to Congress. Hence, the grant of new special provisions authorizing the use of agency income and the establishment of revolving funds over and above the agency appropriations authorized in this Act shall effectively reduce the financing sources of the 1994 GAA and, at the same time, increase the level of expenditures of some agencies beyond the well-coordinated, rationalized levels for such agencies. This corresponding increases the overall deficit of the National Government (Veto Message, p. 3).

Petitioners claim that the President acted with grave abuse of discretion when he disallowed by his veto the "use of income" and the creation of "revolving fund" by