Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 84 views

    Pascual Vs Secretary of Public Works 110 PHIL 331 (1960) : Issues

    Uploaded by

    Dawn Jessa Go
    The Supreme Court ruled the appropriation in RA 920 unconstitutional for the following reasons: 1) The appropriation was for the construction of feeder roads on private property owned by respondent Jose Zulueta at the time the law was passed. 2) Public funds appropriated through taxation can only be used for public purposes, not private advantage. 3) The subsequent proposed donation of the private property to the local government did not cure the constitutional defect, as the property was private when the law was enacted. Therefore, the appropriation served a private rather than public purpose and was void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pascual Vs Secretary of Public Works 110 PHIL 331 (1960) : Issues

    Uploaded by

    Dawn Jessa Go
    84 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled the appropriation in RA 920 unconstitutional for the following reasons: 1) The appropriation was for the construction of feeder roads on private property owned by respondent Jose Zulueta at the time the law was passed. 2) Public funds appropriated through taxation can only be used for public purposes, not private advantage. 3) The subsequent proposed donation of the private property to the local government did not cure the constitutional defect, as the property was private when the law was enacted. Therefore, the appropriation served a private rather than public purpose and was void.

    Original Description:

    consti

    Original Title

    75

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled the appropriation in RA 920 unconstitutional for the following reasons: 1) The appropriation was for the construction of feeder roads on private property owned by respondent Jose Zulueta at the time the law was passed. 2) Public funds appropriated through taxation can only be used for public purposes, not private advantage. 3) The subsequent proposed donation of the private property to the local government did not cure the constitutional defect, as the property was private when the law was enacted. Therefore, the appropriation served a private rather than public purpose and was void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    84 views3 pages

    Pascual Vs Secretary of Public Works 110 PHIL 331 (1960) : Issues

    Uploaded by

    Dawn Jessa Go
    The Supreme Court ruled the appropriation in RA 920 unconstitutional for the following reasons: 1) The appropriation was for the construction of feeder roads on private property owned by respondent Jose Zulueta at the time the law was passed. 2) Public funds appropriated through taxation can only be used for public purposes, not private advantage. 3) The subsequent proposed donation of the private property to the local government did not cure the constitutional defect, as the property was private when the law was enacted. Therefore, the appropriation served a private rather than public purpose and was void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    Pascual vs Secretary of Public Works

    110 PHIL 331 (1960)

    Facts: (Kamo na bahala sa facts po :)

    Petitioner, the governor of the Province of Rizal, filed an action for


    declaratory relief with injunction on the ground that RA 920, Act
    appropriating funds for public works, providing P85,000 for the
    construction, reconstruction, repair, extension and improvement of
    Pasig feeder road terminals, were nothing but projected and planned
    subdivision roads within Antonio Subdivision. Antonio Subdivision is
    owned by the respondent, Jose Zulueta, a member of the Senate of
    the Philippines. Respondent offered to donate the said feeder roads to
    the municipality of Pasig and the offer was accepted by the council,
    subject to a condition that the donor would submit plan of the roads
    and an agreement to change the names of two of the street. However,
    the donation was not executed, which prompted Zulueta to write a
    letter to the district engineer calling attention the approval of RA 920.
    The district engineer, on the other hand, did not endorse the letter
    that inasmuch the feeder roads in question were private property at
    the time of passage and approval of RA 920, the appropriation for the
    construction was illegal and therefore, void ab initio. Petitioner,
    prayed for RA 920 be declared null and void and the alleged deed of
    donation be declared unconstitutional. Lower court dismissed the
    case and dissolved the writ of preliminary injunction.

    ISSUES:
    Whether or not the appropriation of funds stipulated in the “Act
    Appropriating Funds for Public Works” is constitutional, considering the
    petitioner’s contention that the property included in the appropriation
    is of private property of the herein respondent, and considering
    further the respondent’s contention that a law passed by Congress
    and approved by the President can never be illegal because Congress
    is the source of all laws.

    HELD:
    No, the appropriation in this act is unconstitutional.
    As regards to the legal feasibility of appropriating public funds for
    a public purpose, the principle according to Ruling Case Law, is this: It
    is a general rule that the legislature is without power to appropriate
    public revenue for anything, but a public purpose. The taxing
    power must be exercised for public purposes only and the money
    raised by taxation can be expended only for public purposes and not
    for the advantage of private individuals.

    It is the essential character of the direct object of the


    expenditure which must determine its validity as justifying a tax,
    and not the magnitude of the interest to be affected nor the
    degree to which the general advantage of the community, and
    thus the public welfare, may be ultimately benefited by their
    promotion. The test of the constitutionality of a statute requiring
    the use of public funds is whether the statute is designed to
    promote the public interest, as opposed to the furtherance of the
    advantage of individuals, although each advantage to individuals
    might incidentally serve the public. The State exists primarily for
    the promotion of the general welfare.
    In the case at bar, the legality of the appropriation of
    the feeder roads depend upon whether the said roads were public
    or private property when the bill was passed by congress or when
    it became effective. The land which was owned by the respondent,
    which is private, hence, null and void. The donation did not cure
    the nullity of the appropriation; therefore a judicial nullification of
    a said donation need not precede the declaration of
    unconstitutionality of the said appropriation.

    (copy paste :)
    HELD:

    No, the appropriation is void for being an appropriation for a


    private purpose.

    The subsequent donation of the property to the government to


    make the property public does not cure the constitutional defect. The
    fact that the law was passed when the said property was still a private
    property cannot be ignored. “In accordance with the rule that the
    taxing power must be exercised for public purposes only, money
    raised by taxation can be expanded only for public purposes and not
    for the advantage of private individuals.” Inasmuch as the land on
    which the projected feeder roads were to be constructed belonged
    then to the respondent, the result is that said appropriation sought a
    private purpose, and, hence, was null and void.

    You might also like