G.R. No. 103524 April 15, 1992
CESAR BENGZON, QUERUBE MAKALINTAL, LINO M. PATAJO, JOSE LEUTERIO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. FRANKLIN N. DRILON, in his capacity as Executive Secretary, HON. GUILLERMO CARAGUE, in his capacity as Secretary of Department of Budget and Management, and HON. ROSALINA CAJUCOM, in her capacity as National Treasurer, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners are retired Justices of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals receiving monthly pensions under Republic Act No. 910 as amended by Republic Act No. 1797 . Republic Act No. 1797 provided for the automatic adjustment of the retirement pensions of Justices to the prevailing salary rates if the salary of incumbent Justices is increased. President Marcos issued Presidential Decree 644 on January 25, 1975, repealing this automatic adjustment provision. However, the petitioners argued that PD 644 did not become a valid law as it was not published in accordance with the ruling in Tañada v. Tuvera; it appeared in the Official Gazette only on September 5, 1983. Congress, under the impression that PD 644 was validly enacted, later approved a bill in 1990 to reenact the repealed provisions, but President Aquino vetoed it, citing the policy of standardization of compensation under Republic Act No. 6758 . Prior to this petition, several retired Court of Appeals Justices filed a request for readjustment of their pensions, which the Supreme Court granted in a Resolution dated November 28, 1991 (Administrative Matter No. 91-8-225-CA), authorizing the adjustment of their monthly pensions based on RA 1797. Pursuant to this resolution, Congress included appropriations in the General Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 1992 for the payment of the adjusted pension rates. President Aquino vetoed these specific provisions. The petitioners filed this petition challenging the constitutionality of the President’s veto.

ISSUE

The issue is the constitutionality of the veto by the President of certain provisions in the General Appropriations Act for the Fiscal Year 1992 relating to the payment of the adjusted pensions of retired Justices of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals.

RULING

The petition is GRANTED. The questioned veto is SET ASIDE as illegal and unconstitutional. The vetoed provisions of the 1992 Appropriations Act are declared valid and subsisting. The respondents are ordered to automatically and regularly release the funds appropriated for the subject pensions. The Court ruled that the veto was unconstitutional because the President vetoed specific provisions (item-veto) that were not appropriations items but were “provisions” or “conditions” that could not be subject to an item-veto under Article VI, Section 27(2) of the Constitution. The vetoed texts were special provisions detailing how appropriated funds should be used, not distinct appropriation items. Furthermore, the Court held that the petitioners have a vested right to the automatic adjustment of their pensions under RA 1797, as PD 644, which purported to repeal it, never became a valid law due to lack of proper publication. The veto also violated the fiscal autonomy of the Judiciary. The resolution in Administrative Matter No. 91-8-225-CA dated November 28, 1991, is ordered to be implemented.