Nov 9, 2012

Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works Digest

G.R. No. L-10405 December 29, 1960
Ponente: Concepcion, J.

Legal Standing

Facts:
1. Petitioner was the governor of Rizal, filed a petition assailing the validity of R.A. 920 which contains an item
providing for an appropriation of P85,000.00 for the construction and repair of a feeder road in Pasig. The said law
was passed in Congress and approved by the President.

2. The property over which the feeder road will be constructed is however owned by Sen. Zulueta. The property was
to be donated to the local government, though the donation was made a few months after the appropriation was
included in RA 920. The petition alleged that the said planned feeder road would relieve Zulueta the responsibility of
improving the road which is inside a private subdivision.

3. The lower court (RTC) ruled that the petitioner has standing to assail the validity of RA 920, due to the public
interest involved in the appropriation. However, he does not have a standing with respect to the donation since he
does not have an interest that will be injured by said donation, hence it dismissed the petition.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner has the standing to file the petition

YES.

1. Petitioner has standing. He is not merely a taxpayer but the governor of the province of Rizal which is considered
one of the most populated biggest provinces during that time, its taxpayers bear a substantial portion of the burden
of taxation in the country.

2. Public funds can only be appropriated for a public purpose. The test of the constitutionality of a statute requiring
the use of public funds is whether it is used to promote public interest. Moreover, the validity of a stature depends on
the powers of the Congress at the time of its passage or approval, not upon events occurring, or acts performed
subsequent thereto, unless it is an amendment of the organic law.

Pascual vs. Secretary of Public WorksPASCUAL vs. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS

110 PHIL 331GR No. L-10405, December 29, 1960"A law appropriating the public revenue is invalid if the
public advantage or benefit, derived from suchexpenditure, is merely incidental in the promotion of
a particular enterprise.

"FACTS: Governor Wenceslao Pascual of Rizal instituted this action for declaratory relief, with
injunction,upon the ground that RA No. 920, which apropriates funds for public works particularly for
theconstruction and improvement of Pasig feeder road terminals. Some of the feeder roads, however,
asalleged and as contained in the tracings attached to the petition, were nothing but projected and
plannedsubdivision roads, not yet constructed within the Antonio Subdivision, belonging to private
respondentZulueta, situated at Pasig, Rizal; and which projected feeder roads do not connect any
governmentproperty or any important premises to the main highway. The respondents' contention is
that there ispublic purpose because people living in the subdivision will directly be benefitted from the
constructionof the roads, and the government also gains from the donation of the land supposed to be
occupied bythe streets, made by its owner to the government.

ISSUE: Should incidental gains by the public be considered "public purpose" for the purpose of
justifyingan expenditure of the government?

HELD: No. It is a general rule that the legislature is without power to appropriate public revenue
foranything but a public purpose. It is the essential character of the direct object of the expenditure
whichmust determine its validity as justifying a tax, and not the magnitude of the interest to be affected
nor thedegree to which the general advantage of the community, and thus the public welfare, may be
ultimatelybenefited by their promotion. Incidental to the public or to the state, which results from the
promotionof private interest and the prosperity of private enterprises or business, does not justify their
aid by theuse public money.The test of the constitutionality of a statute requiring the use of public funds
is whether the statute isdesigned 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.

Pascual vs Secretary of Public Works 110 Phil. 331 Political Law Appropriation For Private Use Not Allowed In
1953, Republic Act No. 920 was passed. This law appropriated P85,000.00 for the construction, reconstruction,
repair, extension and improvement Pasig feeder road terminals. Wenceslao Pascual, then governor of Rizal,
assailed the validity of the law. He claimed that the appropriation was actually going to be used for private use for
the terminals sought to be improved were part of the Antonio Subdivision. The said Subdivision is owned by Senator
Jose Zulueta who was a member of the same Senate that passed and approved the same RA. Pascual claimed that
Zulueta misrepresented in Congress the fact that he owns those terminals and that his property would be unlawfully
enriched at the expense of the taxpayers if the said RA would be upheld. Pascual then prayed that the Secretary of
Public Works and Communications be restrained from releasing funds for such purpose. Zulueta, on the other hand,
perhaps as an afterthought, donated the said property to the City of Pasig.

ISSUE: Whether or not the appropriation is valid.

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 Zulueta, the result is that said appropriation sought a private
purpose, and, hence, was null and void.