Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 228 views

    Gonzales Vs Macaraig

    Uploaded by

    KGTorres
    1) Gonzales challenged the constitutionality of President Cory Aquino's veto of sections in the 1989 and 1990 Appropriations Bills, arguing that her line-item veto power was limited to items and not provisions. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that the president can veto "inappropriate provisions" inserted into appropriations bills, as such provisions should be enacted in separate legislation. 3) The court determined that the vetoed sections were "inappropriate provisions" that could be treated as "items" subject to the president's veto power, even if they were considered "provisions" beyond the typical veto power.

    Copyright:

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

    Gonzales Vs Macaraig

    Uploaded by

    KGTorres
    228 views1 page
    1) Gonzales challenged the constitutionality of President Cory Aquino's veto of sections in the 1989 and 1990 Appropriations Bills, arguing that her line-item veto power was limited to items and not provisions. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that the president can veto "inappropriate provisions" inserted into appropriations bills, as such provisions should be enacted in separate legislation. 3) The court determined that the vetoed sections were "inappropriate provisions" that could be treated as "items" subject to the president's veto power, even if they were considered "provisions" beyond the typical veto power.

    Original Description:

    POLIREV

    Original Title

    Gonzales vs Macaraig

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Gonzales challenged the constitutionality of President Cory Aquino's veto of sections in the 1989 and 1990 Appropriations Bills, arguing that her line-item veto power was limited to items and not provisions. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that the president can veto "inappropriate provisions" inserted into appropriations bills, as such provisions should be enacted in separate legislation. 3) The court determined that the vetoed sections were "inappropriate provisions" that could be treated as "items" subject to the president's veto power, even if they were considered "provisions" beyond the typical veto power.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    228 views1 page

    Gonzales Vs Macaraig

    Uploaded by

    KGTorres
    1) Gonzales challenged the constitutionality of President Cory Aquino's veto of sections in the 1989 and 1990 Appropriations Bills, arguing that her line-item veto power was limited to items and not provisions. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that the president can veto "inappropriate provisions" inserted into appropriations bills, as such provisions should be enacted in separate legislation. 3) The court determined that the vetoed sections were "inappropriate provisions" that could be treated as "items" subject to the president's veto power, even if they were considered "provisions" beyond the typical veto power.

    Copyright:

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

    GONZALES VS.

    MACARAIG

    Political Law – Veto Power – Inappropriate Provision in an Appropriation Bill

     Gonzales, together w/ 22 other senators, assailed the constitutionality of Cory’s veto of


    Section 55 of the 1989 Appropriations Bill (Sec 55 FY ’89, and subsequently of its
    counterpart Section 16 of the 1990 Appropriations Bill (Sec 16 FY ’90).
     Gonzalez averred the following:

    (1) the President’s line-veto power as regards appropriation bills is limited to item/s and
    does not cover provision/s; therefore, she exceeded her authority when she vetoed
    Section 55 (FY ’89) and Section 16 (FY ’90) which are provision; (2) when the President
    objects to a provision of an appropriation bill, she cannot exercise the item-veto power
    but should veto the entire bill;
    (3) the item-veto power does not carry with it the power to strike out conditions or
    restrictions for that would be legislation, in violation of the doctrine of separation of
    powers; and
    (4) the power of augmentation in Article VI, Section 25
    [5] of the 1987 Constitution, has to be provided for by law and, therefore, Congress is
    also vested with the prerogative to impose restrictions on the exercise of that power.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the President exceeded the item-veto power accorded by the
    Constitution. Or differently put, has the President the power to veto `provisions’ of an
    Appropriations Bill.

    HELD:

     SC ruled that Congress cannot include in a general appropriations bill matters that
    should be more properly enacted in separate legislation, and if it does that, the
    inappropriate provisions inserted by it must be treated as “item,” which can be vetoed
    by the President in the exercise of his item-veto power.
     The SC went one step further and rules that even assuming arguendo that “provisions”
    are beyond the executive power to veto, and Section 55 (FY ’89) and Section 16 (FY ’90)
    were not “provisions” in the budgetary sense of the term, they are “inappropriate
    provisions” that should be treated as “items” for the purpose of the President’s veto
    power.

    You might also like