DEMETRIA v. ALBA

G. R. No. 71977, FEB 27, 1987

DEMETRIA v. ALBA (separation of powers)

Facts:

Petitioners, who are members of the National Assembly as citizens and taxpayers, filed a petition questioning the constitutionality of Sec 44 of PD 1177 (Budget Reform Decree of 1977) on the grounds that: it infringes the law by authorizing the illegal transfer of public moneys, it failed to specify the objectives and purposes for which the proposed transfer of funds are to be made and that it allows the President to override the safeguards, form and procedure and approving appropriations, and is a continuous threat of excess of authority and jurisdiction.

The Solicitor General questioned the legal standing of the petitioners. Also filing a rejoinder to dismiss the petition on the ground that the abrogation of Section 16(5) of Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution by the Freedom Constitution, (“No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations, however, the President, … may by law be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.”) allegedly rendered the petition moot and academic.

ISSUE:

1.       Whether Sec 44 of PD 1177 (Budget Reform Decree of 1977) is unconstitutional.

2.       Whether the Supreme Court can act upon the opposed Executive Act.

HELD:

1.       YES. Par. 1 of Sec 44 of P.D. No. 1177 unduly over extends the privilege granted under said Section 16 (5) of the 1973 Phil. Constitution. It empowers the President to indiscriminately transfer funds from one department to another office or agency of the Executive Department to any program or activity included in the General Appropriations Act without regard as to whether the funds to be transferred are actually savings in the item. It does not only completely disregard the standards set in the fundamental law, thereby amounting to an undue delegation of legislative powers, but likewise goes beyond the tenor thereof.

Par 1 of Sec 44 puts all these safeguards into naught. Such constitutional infirmities render the provision in question null and void.

2.       YES. The Constitution apportions the powers of the government but it does not make any one of the three departments subordinate to another. If an act is declared void, it is not because the judges have any control over the legislative power but because the act is forbidden by the Constitution.

Where the legislature or the executive acts beyond the scope of its constitutional powers, it becomes the duty of the judiciary to declare what the other branches of the government had assumed to do as void.