G.R. No. L-71977 February 27, 1987
DEMETRIO G. DEMETRIA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. MANUEL ALBA, as the MINISTER OF THE BUDGET, and VICTOR MACALINGCAG, as the TREASURER OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners, members of the Batasang Pambansa, filed a petition for prohibition challenging the constitutionality of the first paragraph of Section 44 of Presidential Decree No. 1177, the Budget Reform Decree of 1977. The assailed provision authorized the President to transfer funds within the budget, a power petitioners argued infringed upon legislative prerogatives over the purse. They contended it allowed illegal transfers of public money, failed to specify purposes for transfers, overrode constitutional safeguards in appropriations, and constituted an undue delegation of legislative power to the executive.
The Solicitor General, representing the respondents, moved to dismiss the petition on several grounds. He questioned the petitioners’ legal standing, argued the case presented no justiciable controversy but sought an advisory opinion, and later contended the petition was rendered moot and academic by the promulgation of the 1986 Freedom Constitution, which abrogated the constitutional provision (Section 16[5], Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution) that was the basis for PD 1177. The petitioners, in reply, initially suggested holding the case in abeyance due to political changes but the Court proceeded to resolve the core constitutional issue.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the petitioners possess the requisite legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of Section 44 of PD 1177.

RULING

The Supreme Court held that the petitioners possess legal standing and proceeded to rule on the merits. The Court denied the motion to dismiss, rejecting the claim of mootness. It emphasized that the duty to settle constitutional disputes transcends the disappearance of a specific office or the advent of a new administration, especially when the issue involves fundamental principles of governance and the illegal expenditure of public funds. The Court noted that the provision in the 1973 Constitution, which was the basis for the decree, had been carried over verbatim into the new 1987 Constitution under its Section 24(5), Article VI, making the resolution of the challenge imperative for future guidance.
On the question of legal standing, the Court ruled that as taxpayers, the petitioners had a sufficient interest to file the suit. Citing Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works, the Court affirmed the prevailing doctrine that taxpayers have standing to question the constitutionality of statutes involving the disbursement of public funds, as such expenditure for an unconstitutional purpose constitutes a misapplication of tax money. The Court distinguished this from the principles in Ashwander v. TVA, which caution against unnecessary constitutional rulings, finding that the petitioners’ taxpayer status provided a direct and substantial interest in preventing the alleged illegal transfer of public revenues. This standing, coupled with their roles as legislators representing constituents, allowed them to raise the constitutional challenge. The resolution on the substantive merits of the constitutional challenge to Section 44 was therefore properly undertaken.