Bengzon v. Drilon 1992 Gutierrez Petitioners: Retired Justices Bengzon, Makalintal, Patajo and Leuterio Respondents: Drilon (Exec.

Sec.), Carague (DBM Sec.), Cajucom (Treasurer) Facts: June 20, 1953 RA 910 enacted retirement pensions for retired Justices who served for at least 20 years in service and attained 70 years old RA 910 was amended by RA 1792, Sec 3-A says that in case salary is increased or decreased, such increase or decrease will be deemed the retirement pension Identical retirement benefits given to Consti. Commissions by virtue of RA 1568 amended by RA 3595. Same given to AFP by virtue of PD 758. (PD 578, RA 1797 and 3595 now hove automatic readjustment features) 1975 Marcos issued PD 644 repealing Sec 3-A of RA 1797 and 3595. (no more readjustment features) Marcos issued PD 1909 issued readjusted pensions for AFP alone. Realizing the unfairness of this, Congress approved a bill for the reenactment of RA 1797 and 3595 under the impression that PD 644 became a law. They passed HB No. 16297 and Senate Bill 790. President Aquino vetoed GB No. 16297 because it would erode foundation of govt to adhere to the policy of standardization of compensation stipulated in RA 67587 it should not grant distinct privileges over other civil servants. There was a prior case: o Retired Justices asked for readjustment accdg to RA 1797. Held was PD 644 repealing RA 1797 did not become law as there was no valid publication (Tanada v. Tuvera). o Granted. Congress included in the General Appropriations Bill of 1992 the adjusted pension rates President vetoed provisions of Sec. 1 and Sec. 4 of General Fund Adjustments of Gen. Appropriations Act because it allegedly nullified the veto of HB 16927.

Issues WON the veto of President on provisions of Gen. Appropriations Act is unconstitutional because: 1. 2. 3. 4. Ratio 1. Veto power not absolute accdg to Sec 27(2) of Art. VI. subject veto no an item veto. (Yes) Veto violative of doctrine of separation of powers (Yes) Veto deprives retired justices of rights and pension due them (Yes) Veto impairs fiscal autonomy of courts. (Yes)

When it comes to appropriations, President has item veto power to avoid inexpedient riders being attached to an indispensable appropriation of revenue measure Item particular details. Whole item should be vetoed. President didnt veto item but methods to issue obligations to officials. Vetoed portions not items but provisions. In reality, what were vetoed were RA 1797 and the SC resolution. No President may veto privisions of a law enacted 35 yrs. before PD 644 never became valid, RA 1797 was not repealed, HB 16297 veto was superfluous. Neither may president use veto to repeal RA 1796 this is arrogating legislative powers to President

2 and 4. 3. Retirement laws purpose is to entice competent men and women to enter govt service. Rationale that justices are unduly favored is a misimpression since enlisted men in military are so many, justices so few. Retirement befits should be interpreted liberally in favor of retiree to provide for sustenance. Art 3, Sec 8 judiciary shall maintain fiscal autonomy. Fiscal autonomy is full flexibility to allocate resources. Veto is violative of independence and separation of powers as it is tantamount to dictating the judiciary how funds should be utilized.