Pascual vs Sec of Public Works (1960)Facts: Pet, Wenceslao Pascual is the Prov Gov of Rizal, appealed the decision of a Rizal CFI Said Rizal CFI dismissed the abovementioned entitled case and dissolved the writ of prelim injunction issued Pet Pascual instituted an action for declaratory relief with injunction, 1to declare null and void RA No. 920 "An Act Appropriating Funds for Public Works" and 2the deed of donation made by Jose Zulueta unconstitutional, for the following reasons: A provision thereof allocates Php85K for the Pasig feeder road terminals when those feeder roads were only projected and planned subdivision roads that were not yet constructed when the Act was passed That they were within the Antonio Subdivision which is owned by Jose Zulueta, a senator when the Act was passed and roads do not connect any government property or any important premises to the main highway Zulueta donated said projected feeder roads to the municipality of Pasig, Rizal, without deed of donation, with the condition that he would agree to change the names of two of them the appropriation of P85K therein made, for the construction, reconstruction, repair, extension and improvement of said projected feeder roads, was voidab initio Since projected feeder roads were private property at the time of the passage and approval of RA 920 Members of Congress because were made to believe that the projected feeder roads in question were "public roads and not private streets of a private subdivision" in order to give a semblance of legality, respondent Zulueta, while still a senator, executed an alleged deed of donation of his 4 parcels of land for the feeder roads in favor of the PH govt. This is unconstitutional for violating the provision of our fundamental law prohibiting members of Congress from being directly or indirectly financially interested in any contract with the Government the construction of said roads, to be undertaken with the aforementioned appropriation of P85,000.00, would have the effect of relieving respondent Zulueta of the burden of constructing his subdivision streets or roads at his own expenses Respondent moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that pet has no legal capacity to sue and there was no cause of action: Provl Fiscal, not Provl Gov should represent the province of Rizal, pursuant to section 1683 of the Revised Administrative Code There is no law which makes illegal the appropriation of public funds for the improvements of . . . private property A law passed by Congress and approved by the President can never be illegal because Congress is the source of all laws the constitutional provision invoked by petitioner is inapplicable to the donation in question, the same being a pure act of liberality, not a contract. petitioner "has not shown that he has a personal and substantial interest" in said Act and that its enforcement will cause him injury CFI of Rizal dismissed the case, saying that the legality of said donation may not be contested by petitioner herein, because his "interest are not directly affected." However, the court ruled that: Prov. Gov of Rizal and Prov Fiscal both have the requisite personalities since case is of pub interest Legislature cannot appropriate public revenues for anything but a public purpose that the instructions and improvement of the feeder roads in question, if such roads where private property, would not be a public purpose The deed of donation is onerous and is a contract and is illegal and forbidden by the Consti since the purpose and cause are contrary to laws However, appropriations should be upheld and case dismissed because pet is not a party thereof and not affected thereofIssues:1. W/N laws passed by Congress and approved by the Pres can be declared illegal2. W/N lawmakers can only appropriate pub funds for public purpose3. W/N validity of the donation cures the unconstitutionality of RA No. 9204. W/N RA No. 920 cannot be annulled without a declaration of unconstitutionality of the donation5. W/N Article 1421 of CC on non-suing of non-parties is absolute, and admits of no exception.

Ruling:1. They can be declared illegal, for the reason of the nature of the Government created by the Consti and because of the principles of checks and balances. SC has refuted by decisions illegal and unConstitutional laws2. It is a general rule thatthe legislature is without power to appropriate public revenue for anything but a public purpose. It is the essential character of the direct object of the expenditure which must determine its validity as justifying a tax, and not the magnitude of the interest to be affected nor the degree to which the general advantage of the community, and thus the public welfare, may be ultimately benefited by their promotion. The test of the constitutionality of a statute requiring the use of public funds is whether the statute is designed to promote the public interest, as opposed to the furtherance of the advantage of individuals, although each advantage to individuals mightincidentallyserve the public. The State exists primarily for the promotion of the general welfare.3. No. GR: The validity of a statute depends upon the powers of Congress at the time of its passage or approval, not upon events occurring, or acts performed, subsequently thereto, EXC: The latter consists of an amendment of the organic law, removing, with retrospective operation, the constitutional limitation infringed by said statute. Legality of P85K appropriation depended upon whether said roads were public or private property when passed by Congress, approved by Pres, and sum disbursed became effective The donation to the Government after the approval and effectivity of said Act for the purpose of giving a "semblance of legality", or legalizing, the appropriation, did not cure its aforementioned basic defect.4. No. Inasmuch as the land on which the projected feeder roads were to be constructed belonged then to respondent Zulueta, the result is that said appropriation sought a private purpose, hence NULL and VOID. A judicial nullification of the donation need not precede the declaration of unconstitutionality of said appropriation.5. No. Article 1421 of our Civil Code, like many other statutory enactments, is subject to exceptions. It is our considered opinion that the circumstances surrounding this case sufficiently justify petitioners action in contesting the appropriation and donation in question. It is well-stated that the validity of a statute may be contested only by one who will sustain a direct injury in consequence of its enforcement but the Court has nullified laws on disbursements of pub funds at the instance of taxpayers. The rule recognizing the right of taxpayers to assail the constitutionality of a legislation appropriating local or state public funds, which has been upheld by the Federal Supreme Court, has greater application in the Philippines. Like the petitioners in the Rodriguez and Barredo cases, petitioner herein is not merely a taxpayer. He represents the Province of Rizal officially as its Provincial Governor. Rizal is the most populated political subdivision,and the taxpayers therein bear a substantial portion of the burden of taxation, in the Philippines.