Gonzales vs.

Macaraig
G.R. No 87636 November 19, 1990
Ponente: J. Melencio–Herrera

Facts: December 16, 1988, Congress passed House Bill No. 19186 akaGeneral Appropriations Bill
for Fiscal Year 1989. December 29,1988, President signed the Bill into law and had become Rep.
Act No 6688. In the process, seven special provisions and Section 55 on “General Provision”
were vetoed.
 
Senate issued Resolution No. 381 expressing the veto by the
presidentwere unconstitutional."SEC. 55. Prohibition Against the Restoration or Increase of Rec
ommended Appropriations Disapproved and/or Reduced by Congress: No item of appropriation
recommended by the President in the Budget submitted to Congress pursuant to Article VII,
Section 22 of the Constitution which has been disapproved or reduced in this Act shall be
restored or increased by the use of appropriations authorized for other purposes by
augmentation. An item of appropriation for any purpose recommended by the President in the Budget
shall be deemed to have been disapproved by Congress if no corresponding appropriation for the
specific purpose is provided in this Act."

Issue: Whether or not veto made by the president is constitutional

Held:Yes.
1) Article 6 Section 27 of the 1987 Constitution has 2 parts, a.) President generally can veto the
entire bill as exercise of her power and b.) president shall have the power to veto any particular
item or items in an appropriation, revenue of tariff bill but the veto shall not affect the item or items to
which he does not object.

2) General provisions made in an appropriations bill shall ultimately refer to a specific

appropriation for it to take effect; Section 55 did not refer to any appropriations involved in the
entire bill. Similarly, the contents of this section is concerned on Appropriation Disapproved
and/or reduced by Congress that is not included on the face of the bill.

Court ruled the constitutionality of the presidential veto and the petition was DISMISSED
 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.