Scribd
Upload
47 views2 pages

Constitutionality of PD 1177 Sec 44

PD 1177 is challenged as unconstitutional for authorizing illegal transfer of public funds and undue delegation of legislative powers to the President. The Solicitor General questions the petitioners' legal standing and argues the case is moot since the provision was enacted under a previous Constitution. The Supreme Court holds that Section 44 of PD 1177 overextends privileges granted and disregards constitutional standards, amounting to an undue delegation of powers. It renders the provision null and void. The Court also holds it has the authority to declare executive acts unconstitutional and grant the petition.

Uploaded by

RR F
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
47 views2 pages

Constitutionality of PD 1177 Sec 44

PD 1177 is challenged as unconstitutional for authorizing illegal transfer of public funds and undue delegation of legislative powers to the President. The Solicitor General questions the petitioners' legal standing and argues the case is moot since the provision was enacted under a previous Constitution. The Supreme Court holds that Section 44 of PD 1177 overextends privileges granted and disregards constitutional standards, amounting to an undue delegation of powers. It renders the provision null and void. The Court also holds it has the authority to declare executive acts unconstitutional and grant the petition.

Uploaded by

RR F
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Facts:

Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the first paragraph of Sec 44 of PD 1177 (Budget
Reform Decree of 1977)as concerned citizens, members of the National Assembly, parties
with general interest common to all people of the Philippines, and as taxpayerson the
primary grounds that Section 44 infringes upon the fundamental law by authorizing illegal
transfer of public moneys, amounting to undue delegation of legislative powers and allowing
the President to override the safeguards prescribed for approving appropriations.
The Solicitor General, for the public respondents, questioned the legal standing of the
petitioners and held that one branch of the government cannot be enjoined by another,
coordinate branch in its performance of duties within its sphere of responsibility. It also
alleged that the petition has become moot and academic after the abrogation of Sec 16(5),
Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution by the Freedom Constitution (which was where the
provision under consideration was enacted in pursuant thereof), which states that No law
shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations, however, the Presidentmay by
law be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective
offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.
Issue:
1. W/N PD 1177 is constitutional
2. W/N the Supreme Court can act upon the assailed executive act
Held:
1. No. Sec 44 of PD 1177 unduly overextends the privilege granted under Sec16(5) by
empowering the President to indiscriminately transfer funds from one department of the
Executive Department to any program of any department included in the General
Appropriations Act, without any regard as to whether or not the funds to be transferred are
actually savings in the item. It not only disregards the standards set in the fundamental law,
thereby amounting to an undue delegation of legislative powers, but likewise goes beyond the
tenor thereof.
Par. 1 of Sec. 44 puts all safeguards to forestall abuses in the expenditure of public funds to
naught. Such constitutional infirmities render the provision in question null and void.
2. Yes. Where the legislature or executive acts beyond the scope of its constitutional powers,
it becomes the duty of the judiciary to declare what the other branches of the government has
assumed to do as void, as part of its constitutionally conferred judicial power. This is not to

say that the judicial power is superior in degree or dignity. In exercising this high authority,
the judges claim no judicial supremacy; they are only the administrators of the public will.
Petition granted. Par. 1, Sec. 44 OF PD 1177 null and void.

You might also like