Doctrine of Inappropriate Provision

Doctrine of Inappropriate Provision "I read in the newspaper that President Rodrigo Duterte recently vetoed some provisions of the General Appropriations Bill for the fiscal year 2021 for being inappropriate provisions. May I know what are considered “inappropriate provisions” in an appropriation bill?Abet Dear Abet,Generally, when a bill is presented to the President for approval, and the latter opts to exercise his veto power, he must veto the bill in its entirety. Otherwise, when the President vetoes a bill, he may not partly approve the bill and partly veto it. An exception is provided by Section 27 (2) of the 1987 Constitution, which provides: “The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does not object.” In appropriation bills, the words item and provision are defined differently. In Bengzon vs Drilon (GR 103524, April 15, 1992, Ponente: Associate Justice Hugo Gutierrez Jr.), the Court distinguishes these terms in this wise: “The terms item and provision in budgetary legislation and practice are concededly different. An item in a bill refers to the particulars, the details, the distinct and severable parts…of the bill. It is an indivisible sum of money dedicated to a stated purpose xxx The United States Supreme Court, xxx declared that an ‘item’ of an appropriation bill obviously means an item which in itself is a specific appropriation of money, not some general provision of law, which happens to be put into an appropriation bill.”Consequently, when the legislature inserts in an appropriation bill any provision of law which has no relation to an item, such is considered “inappropriate provision.” Consequently, the President may veto it separately, although it is not an item within the contemplation of budgetary bill. In Philippine Constitution Association vs Enriquez (GR 113105, Aug. 19, 1994), the Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Camilo Quiason, pronounced: “As the Constitution is explicit that the provision which Congress can include in an appropriations bill must ‘relate specifically to some particular appropriation therein’ and ‘be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it relates,’ it follows that any provision which does not relate to any particular item, or which extends in its operation beyond an item of appropriation, is considered ‘an inappropriate provision’ which can be vetoed separately from an item. Also to be included in the category of ‘inappropriate provisions’ are unconstitutional provisions and provisions which are intended to amend other laws, because clearly these kind of laws have no place in an appropriations bill. These are matters of general legislation more appropriately dealt with in separate enactments. x x x when the legislature inserts inappropriate provisions in a general appropriation bill, such provisions must be treated as ‘items’ for purposes of the [governor’s] item veto power over general appropriation bills.”We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changes or elaborated. Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net" - https://www.affordablecebu.com/