Case Digest (G.R. No. 103524)
Facts:
In G.R. No. 103524, decided on April 15, 1992 under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, retired Justices of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals—among them Chief Justice Cesar Bengzon, Chief Justice Querube Makalintal, Justice Lino M. Patajo, Justice Jose Leuterio, and others—filed a petition challenging the executive veto of certain provisions in the General Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1992. Respondents were Executive Secretary Franklin N. Drilon, Budget Secretary Guillermo Carague, and National Treasurer Rosalina Cajucom, all sued in their official capacities. The petitioners sought enforcement of pension adjustments mandated by Republic Act No. 910 (1953) as amended by Republic Act No. 1797 (1957), providing automatic salary‐based pension readjustments, which had been repealed by Presidential Decree No. 644 (1975) but never validly published. In Administrative Matter No. 91-8-225-CA, the Court in a November 28, 1991 resolution had authorized immediate adjustment of theCase Digest (G.R. No. 103524)
Facts:
- Parties and Petition
- Petitioners: Retired Justices of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals (including Chief Justice Bengzon, Justice Makalintal, Justice Patajo, Justice Leuterio, et al.), on their own behalf and in representation of similarly situated retirees.
- Respondents: Hon. Franklin N. Drilon (Executive Secretary), Hon. Guillermo Carague (Budget Secretary), Hon. Rosalina Cajucom (National Treasurer), sued in official capacities for implementing appropriations.
- Statutory and Procedural Background
- Retirement statutes:
- Republic Act No. 910 (1953) granted lifetime pensions equal to last received salary for Justices retiring at age 70 or for incapacity.
- Republic Act No. 1797 (1957) added automatic salary‐based adjustments; RA 3595 provided identical benefits for Constitutional Commission members.
- Presidential decrees:
- PD 578 (1974) extended automatic readjustment to Armed Forces; PD 644 (1975) purportedly repealed the adjustment feature in RA 1797/RA 3595.
- PD 1638 and PD 1909 restored Armed Forces’ automatic readjustment; judicial pensions remained unreinstated.
- Congressional reenactment and veto:
- House Bill No. 16297/Senate Bill No. 740 (1990) sought to reenact RA 1797/RA 3595.
- President Aquino vetoed HB 16297 (July 11, 1990) for violating compensation standardization under RA 6758.
- Supreme Court administrative matter:
- AM-91-8-225-CA (April 22, 1991): Retired CA Justices petitioned for pension readjustment under RA 1797, arguing PD 644 was void for lack of valid publication (Tanada v. Tuvera).
- SC Resolution (Nov. 28, 1991) granted adjustment effective January 1, 1991, subject to fund availability.
- 1992 General Appropriations Act (GAA):
- Included appropriations and special provisions authorizing adjusted pension payments to retired Justices.
- President vetoed underlined portions of Special Provisions for the Judiciary (Jan. 15, 1992), citing erosion of compensation standardization and undeserved privileges.
Issues:
- Whether the President’s veto of specific provisions in the 1992 GAA constitutes a valid item veto under Art. VI, Sec. 27(2) of the Constitution.
- Whether the veto violates the doctrine of separation of powers by encroaching on legislative prerogatives and judicial decisions.
- Whether the veto unlawfully impairs the Judiciary’s fiscal autonomy guaranteed by Art. VIII, Sec. 3.
- Whether the veto deprives retired Justices of vested pension rights under RA 1797 and the SC’s AM-91-8-225-CA resolution.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)