Case Digest (G.R. No. L-25554)
Facts:
Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. v. Ismael Mathay and Jose Velasco, G.R. No. L-25554, October 04, 1966, Supreme Court En Banc, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner, Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. (PHILCONSA), a non-stock, non-profit association of Filipino taxpayers, sought to enjoin the Auditor General and the Auditor of Congress from authorizing or passing in audit the payment of increased legislative salaries authorized by Republic Act No. 4134 (approved June 10, 1964) prior to December 30, 1969. The petition challenged both the substance of the increased compensation for the Speaker and members of the House and Senate and the appropriation and disbursement of those increased salaries in the Fiscal Year 1965–1966 Appropriation Act (Republic Act No. 4642).
RA 4134 set higher annual salaries for presiding officers and members of both chambers but stated that “the salary increases herein fixed shall take effect in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.” Article VI, Section 14 of the Constitution (as amended in 1940) fixes then-current legislative compensation and provides that “No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the full term of all the Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives approving such increase.” The petitioners’ complaint emphasized that some senators who participated in approving RA 4134 had terms extending to December 30, 1969, while the House members who approved it would have their terms expire earlier (December 30, 1965), and thus the salary increase could not lawfully take effect for current Representatives.
The 1965–1966 Appropriation Act (RA 4642) contained line items that, in effect, implemented RA 4134 by providing part-year payments (P16,000 from July 1 to December 29, 1965 and P40,000 from December 30, 1965 to June 30, 1966 for the Speaker; and analogous amounts for members), which PHILCONSA alleged violated the constitutional waiting-period restriction. Upon receiving a written protest, the Acting Auditor General sought guidance from the Solicitor General, who suggested referral to the Secretary of Justice; before a definitive legal opinion was rendered, the Acting Auditor General directed his representative in Congress (Velasco) to pass in audit and approve payment within the limits of the Appropriation Act, prompting the suit.
Respondents raised preliminaries: lack of personality (standing) of PHILCONSA as taxpayers and nonjoinder of members of the House as necessary parties. On the merits respondents contended that increases could take effect for Members of the House elected after those who approved RA 4134, regardless of the unexpired terms of approving Senators. The Court considered precedents on taxpayer standing (including PHILCONSA v. Gimenez, G.R. No. L-23326; Tayabas v. Perez, 56 Phil. 257; Pascual v...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Do the petitioners (taxpayers) have the legal personality to maintain an action to enjoin the approval and disbursement of alleged unconstitutional legislative salary increases, and is the nonjoinder of the members of the House of Representatives fatal to the action?
- Does Article VI, Section 14 of the Constitution require that the full terms of all Senators who approved a legislative salary increase, as well as those of the Representatives who approved it, must expire before the increase becomes effective; and, consequently, was the appropriation in RA 4642 that implemente...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)