November 19, 1990 | 191 SCRA 133
Neptali Gonzales, et al., petitioners
Hon. Catalino Macaraig, Jr., et al., respondents
FACTS:
President Corazon Aquino vetoed Section 55 of the GAA for the fiscal year 1989 and Section 16 of the GAA for the fiscal year 1990. The reason cited by President Aquino was that both of these sections restrict or prevent the President, the Senate President, the Speaker of the House, the heads of the constitutional commisions and the Chief Justice of the SC from restoring or increasing items of appropriation recommended by the President, which recommendations have already been reduced or disapproved by Congress through the assailed GAAs. In effect, these sections nullify the statutory and constitutional authority of the aforesaid officials to augment any item in the GAA for their respective offices from savings in other items of their appropriation.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the presidential veto on Section 55 of the GAA for the fiscal year 1989 and Section 16 of the GAA for the fiscal year 1990 is constitutional.
Yes, the presidential veto on Section 55 of GAA for the fiscal year 1989 and Section 16 of the GAA for the fiscal year 1990 is constitutional. These sections were vetoed because they violate Section 5(5) of Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution, which grants the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, the heads of the Constitutional Commissions, and the CJ of the SC the authority to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their appropriations.
This constitutional mandate, also known as the power of augmentation, finds statutory basis in Sections 44 and 45 of PD 1177, which authorizes the President to use savings to augment any appropriation in the Executive Department.
This constitutional mandate, also known as the power of augmentation, finds statutory basis in Sections 44 and 45 of PD 1177, which authorizes the President to use savings to augment any appropriation in the Executive Department.
Congress had the power to override the veto on both sections by having a 2/3 vote of approval by members of each House, but Congress did not choose to do so. At the same time, Section 55 of GAA 1989 and Section 16 of GAA 1990 should not be construed as having repealed PD 1177, mainly because implied repeals are frowned upon.