G.R. No. 103524 - Bengzon vs. Drilon

Case Summary (G.R. No. 103524)

Petitioner Claims and Relief Sought

Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the President’s partial vetoes of certain provisions in the General Appropriations Act (GAA) for Fiscal Year 1992 that would have funded adjusted pensions for retired Justices pursuant to Republic Act No. 1797 and a prior Supreme Court resolution (Administrative Matter No. 91-8-225-CA). They asserted the vetoes (1) exceeded the Executive’s item-veto power, (2) violated separation of powers, (3) deprived retirees of vested pension rights, and (4) impaired the Judiciary’s fiscal autonomy.

Respondents’ Role and Procedural Posture

Respondents are Executive officials responsible for implementing and releasing appropriated funds. The petition was consolidated with Administrative Matter No. 91-8-225-CA (a petition by retired Court of Appeals Justices seeking readjustment of their pensions). The Court treated the OSG’s comments as the government’s answer and resolved the consolidated matters on the merits.

Key Dates and Legislative Background

Relevant statutory and administrative milestones include: Republic Act No. 910 (1953) establishing retirement pensions for Justices; Republic Act No. 1797 (1957) providing for automatic adjustment of those pensions; Presidential Decree No. 644 (1975) purporting to repeal Section 3-A of RA 1797; subsequent presidential decrees restoring pension adjustments for military retirees (PD Nos. 1638 and 1909); Congress’s 1990 effort to reenact RA 1797 (House Bill No. 16297) which the President vetoed; the Supreme Court resolution of November 28, 1991 (AM-91-8-225-CA) authorizing adjusted pension payments; inclusion of implementing provisions in the GAA FY 1992; and the President’s partial veto of specified GAA provisions on January 15, 1992.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Provisions

The Court’s analysis was governed by RA 910 and RA 1797 (pension statutes), Presidential Decrees cited in the factual history, the publication requirement for laws and decrees articulated in Tanada v. Tuvera, and the 1987 Constitution. The Constitution’s pertinent provisions referenced include: Article VI, Section 27(2) (item veto in appropriation, revenue or tariff bills), Article VI, Section 25(5) (authority to augment appropriations for heads of branches and constitutional commissions), and Article VIII, Section 3 (Judiciary’s fiscal autonomy: appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced below the prior year and, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly released).

Factual Summary

RA 910 (1953) granted lifetime pensions based on the salary at retirement; RA 1797 (1957) provided that changes in Justices’ salaries would be deemed the salary for pension purposes, thereby automatically adjusting pensions with salary changes. PD 644 (1975) purported to repeal the adjustment provision, but subsequent evidence showed it was not validly published at the time of promulgation; publication occurred belatedly and backdated in an Official Gazette supplement released in 1983. Congress and the Supreme Court later acted to secure pension adjustments, culminating in the Court’s November 28, 1991 resolution ordering adjustments and Congress’s inclusion of implementing appropriation provisions in the GAA FY 1992.

Administrative Matter and Supreme Court Resolution

In Administrative Matter No. 91-8-225-CA the Court authorized pension adjustments for named retired Justices, ordering their monthly pensions to be adjusted under RA 1797 effective January 1, 1991 and allowing for payment of prior differentials when funds became available. That resolution became the operative judicial determination requiring implementation.

Inclusion and Veto of Appropriations in GAA FY 1992

Congress incorporated specific appropriations and special provisions in the GAA FY 1992 to implement the Court’s resolution and to permit the Chief Justice and the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals to augment items from savings to pay adjusted pensions. The President vetoed selected underlined portions and entire sections of those special provisions on the ground that they effectively nullified her earlier veto of HB 16297 and would undermine the policy of standardized compensation.

Issues Presented to the Court

The Court addressed whether the President’s partial vetoes were (1) an impermissible partial veto of parts of an appropriation item, (2) an unconstitutional encroachment on judicial authority and separation of powers by attempting to nullify a prior law and a Supreme Court resolution, (3) a deprivation of vested pension rights under RA 1797, and (4) an impairment of the Judiciary’s constitutionally-mandated fiscal autonomy.

Ruling and Relief

The Court granted the petition: it set aside the President’s challenged vetoes as illegal and unconstitutional, declared the vetoed appropriations provisions valid and subsisting, ordered respondents to automatically and regularly release the funds appropriated for the subject pensions and other Judiciary appropriations pursuant to fiscal autonomy, and directed implementation of the Supreme Court’s Administrative Matter No. 91-8-225-CA resolution.

Item Veto Doctrine and Application

The Court reaffirmed that the President’s item veto power under Article VI, Section 27(2) of the Constitution authorizes veto of particular item(s) in appropriation, revenue, or tariff bills but does not permit vetoing only a part of an indivisible appropriation item or severing portions of an item into vetoed and unvetoed fragments. The Court distinguished between an “item” (a specific, indivisible appropriation of money for a stated purpose) and a “provision” (a legislative method, condition, or authority contained within an appropriation bill). The vetoes at issue struck provisions (methods by which appropriations would be augmented and released), not whole appropriation items, thus exceeding permissible item-veto scope.

Nondelegable Limits: Executive Cannot Repeal Statutes or Set Aside Final Judicial Decisions

The Court held that the President may not, through the veto power, repeal an existing statute enacted decades earlier (RA 1797) nor nullify or set aside a final and executory judgment or resolution of the Supreme Court. The challenged vetoes, premised on the erroneous belief that RA 1797 had been repealed by PD 644 or that the Court’s resolution improperly restored benefits, effectively attempted to achieve by veto what the Executive lacks the power to do—amend or repeal statutes and overturn final judicial determinations.

Validity of PD 644 and Continuance of RA 1797

Applying the publication requirement articulated in Tanada v. Tuvera, and relying on certification that the Official Gazette supplement purporting to publish PD 644 had been actually released only in 1983, the Court concluded that PD 644 never validly became law. Because the alleged repealing decree lacked timely and valid publication, RA 1797 remained effective and continued to confer an entitlement to adjusted pensions. Consequently, Congressional and judicial efforts to restore benefits addressed a problem that, legally speaking, had not existed.

Fiscal Autonomy of the Judiciary

The Court emphasized the constitutional protection of the Judiciary’s fiscal autonomy (Article VIII, Section 3), explaining that the Constitution commands that appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced below the previous year and shall be automatically and

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 103524)

Case Caption, Parties, and Relief Sought

Petitioners: Retired Justices including Cesar Bengzon, Querube Makalintal, Lino M. Patajo, Jose Leuterio, et al., bringing the petition on their own behalf and in representation of all other retired Justices of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals similarly situated.
Respondents: Hon. Franklin N. Drilon (Executive Secretary), Hon. Guillermo Carague (Secretary, Department of Budget and Management), Hon. Rosalina Cajucom (National Treasurer), sued in their official capacities as Executive officials involved in implementation and release of funds appropriated in the Annual Appropriations Law.
Additional administrative requestants: Retired Court of Appeals Justices Manuel P. Barcelona, Juan P. Enriquez, Juan O. Reyes, Jr., and Guardson R. Lood in Administrative Matter No. 91-8-225-CA seeking readjustment of their monthly pensions pursuant to RA 1797.
Relief sought: Declaration that the President’s veto of certain provisions in the General Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1992 (relating to payment of adjusted pensions of retired Justices) is unconstitutional; an order directing automatic and regular release of appropriated funds for the adjusted pensions; and enforcement of the Court’s Administrative Matter resolution granting pension readjustments.

Procedural History

RA 910 enacted June 20, 1953 — retirement pensions for Justices who rendered at least 20 years service and met age or incapacity requirements.
RA 1797 (approved June 21, 1957) — amended RA 910 by providing for automatic adjustment of retirement pensions when salaries of Justices are increased or decreased; provided previously accrued benefits unaffected.
RA 3595 likewise extended identical retirement benefits to members of Constitutional Commissions.
P.D. 578 (Nov. 12, 1974) extended similar benefits to members of the Armed Forces including automatic readjustment features.
P.D. 644 (Jan. 25, 1975) purportedly repealed Section 3-A of RA 1797 and RA 3595 (and thereby removed automatic adjustment features for retirees of Judiciary and Constitutional Commissions).
Subsequent decrees restored automatic readjustment for Armed Forces retirees (P.D. 1638 and P.D. 1909), while judicial retirees were not restored by Presidential decrees.
Congress passed House Bill No. 16297 in 1990 intending to reenact repealed provisions; President Aquino vetoed HB No. 16297 on July 11, 1990, citing erosion of compensation standardization and objection to distinct privileges.
Administrative Matter No. 91-8-225-CA: retired CA justices filed a petition dated April 22, 1991 for readjustment; Court issued Resolution dated November 28, 1991 granting readjustment and authorizing monthly pension adjustments effective Jan. 1, 1991 (with pension differential for prior years payable upon availability of funds).
Congress included special provisions in General Appropriations Act (GAA) FY 1992 to fund adjusted pensions in line with AM No. 91-8-225-CA.
On January 15, 1992 the President vetoed underlined portions and certain entire sections of the GAA FY 1992 special provisions for the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals and portions of the General Fund Adjustment special provisions.
Petition filed challenging constitutionality of said veto (G.R. No. 103524); Court consolidated the administrative matter with the petition on February 14, 1992.
Decision promulgated April 15, 1992 (Gutierrez, Jr., J.), granting petition and setting aside the vetoed provisions.

Statutory and Regulatory Background (RA 910, RA 1797, RA 3595, Presidential Decrees)

RA 910 (June 20, 1953):
- Provided retirement pensions for Justices of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals meeting service and age/incapacity requirements.
- Retired Justice to receive during his natural life the salary he was receiving at retirement.
RA 1797 (June 21, 1957) — Sec. 3-A:
- Where salaries of Justices increase or decrease, such increased or decreased salary shall, for purposes of the Act, be deemed the retirement salary or pension which a Justice who had ceased to be such was receiving at the time of cessation.
- Any benefits accrued prior to such increase or decrease were not affected.
RA 3595: Amended RA 1568 to extend identical retirement benefits to members of Constitutional Commissions.
P.D. 578 (Nov. 12, 1974): extended similar retirement benefits to members of Armed Forces with automatic readjustment features like RA 1797 and RA 3595.
P.D. 644 (Jan. 25, 1975): purportedly repealed Sec. 3-A of RA 1797 and RA 3595, thereby negating automatic readjustment for retired Justices and Constitutional Commissioners.
P.D. 1638 and P.D. 1909: restored automatic readjustment of retirement pensions for officers and enlisted men of the Armed Forces (including those retired prior to Sept. 10, 1979), leaving judicial retirees unreinstated by decree.

Facts Leading to the Dispute (Congress, GAA FY 1992, and Presidential Veto)

Congress believed P.D. 644 had become law and thus in 1990 approved a bill to reenact RA 1797 and RA 3595 to restore retirement pensions and privileges for retired Justices and Constitutional Commission members.
Petitioners highlighted that the retired Chief Justice, retired Associate Justice, and retired Presiding Justice were receiving modest monthly pensions (P3,333.33; P2,666.66; P2,333.33 respectively), underscoring the legislative rationale for restoration.
Supreme Court resolution of Nov. 28, 1991 (AM No. 91-8-225-CA) authorized adjustment of monthly pensions effective Jan. 1, 1991, and payment of differentials upon fund availability.
GAA FY 1992 included appropriations and special provisions explicitly providing for:
- Use of savings to augment items for payment of adjusted pension rates to retired Justices entitled pursuant to AM No. 91-8-225-CA.
- A distinct appropriation amount for payment of pensions to retired judges and justices (P22,500,000 cited among appropriations items).
- Specific authorizations in Supreme Court and Court of Appeals sections (with page citations and bolded provisions in source).
- General Fund Adjustment item (P500,000,000) with special provision authorizing use for, inter alia, payment of back salaries and related personnel benefits arising from decisions of competent authority including the Supreme Court decision in AM No. 91-8-225-CA and COA decision No. 1704.
On January 15, 1992, the President vetoed certain underlined portions and specific sections in the GAA FY 1992 special provisions concerning:
- Augmentation authority for the Chief Justice to use savings to pay adjusted pension rates (Supreme Court special provisions).
- Payment of adjusted pension rates to retired Justices as included in pension appropriation items (entire Section 4).
- Similar underlined and entire sections in the Court of Appeals special provisions.
- Part of Special Provision 1.3 of Article XLV (General Fund Adjustment) relating to drawing funds from the general fund adjustment to comply with Supreme Court/COA decisions.
Presidential rationale for veto:
- The Court’s resolution in AM No. 91-8-225-CA effectively nullified the President’s earlier veto of HB No. 16297 (which sought reenactment of RA 1797/3595).
- The veto of 1992 provisions was necessary because reenactment would erode enforcement of the policy of standardizing compensation per RA 6758 (Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989).
- The Government should not grant distinct privileges to a select group whose retirement benefits already enjoy preferential treatment over the majority of civil service servants.

Issues Presented by Pet