Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Garcia Vs Mata DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Myra Myra
    This document summarizes the case of Garcia vs Mata. It discusses the facts of the case, which involve a reserve officer named Garcia seeking reinstatement to active duty in the Armed Forces of the Philippines after being reverted to inactive status. The main issue is whether paragraph 11 of Republic Act 1600 is unconstitutional, as it contains a rider in an appropriations bill. The court held that paragraph 11 violates the constitution as it does not relate to any appropriation and deals with a policy matter regarding reserve officers, making it a non-appropriation item inserted in an appropriations measure. Therefore, section 11 was found to be unconstitutional and Garcia could not compel the AFP to reinstate him based on its provisions.

    Copyright:

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

    Garcia Vs Mata DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Myra Myra
    1K views2 pages
    This document summarizes the case of Garcia vs Mata. It discusses the facts of the case, which involve a reserve officer named Garcia seeking reinstatement to active duty in the Armed Forces of the Philippines after being reverted to inactive status. The main issue is whether paragraph 11 of Republic Act 1600 is unconstitutional, as it contains a rider in an appropriations bill. The court held that paragraph 11 violates the constitution as it does not relate to any appropriation and deals with a policy matter regarding reserve officers, making it a non-appropriation item inserted in an appropriations measure. Therefore, section 11 was found to be unconstitutional and Garcia could not compel the AFP to reinstate him based on its provisions.

    Original Description:

    Consti 1

    Original Title

    Garcia vs Mata DIGEST

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes the case of Garcia vs Mata. It discusses the facts of the case, which involve a reserve officer named Garcia seeking reinstatement to active duty in the Armed Forces of the Philippines after being reverted to inactive status. The main issue is whether paragraph 11 of Republic Act 1600 is unconstitutional, as it contains a rider in an appropriations bill. The court held that paragraph 11 violates the constitution as it does not relate to any appropriation and deals with a policy matter regarding reserve officers, making it a non-appropriation item inserted in an appropriations measure. Therefore, section 11 was found to be unconstitutional and Garcia could not compel the AFP to reinstate him based on its provisions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Garcia Vs Mata DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Myra Myra
    This document summarizes the case of Garcia vs Mata. It discusses the facts of the case, which involve a reserve officer named Garcia seeking reinstatement to active duty in the Armed Forces of the Philippines after being reverted to inactive status. The main issue is whether paragraph 11 of Republic Act 1600 is unconstitutional, as it contains a rider in an appropriations bill. The court held that paragraph 11 violates the constitution as it does not relate to any appropriation and deals with a policy matter regarding reserve officers, making it a non-appropriation item inserted in an appropriations measure. Therefore, section 11 was found to be unconstitutional and Garcia could not compel the AFP to reinstate him based on its provisions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Garcia vs Mata

    FACTS:

    Petitioner was a reserve officer on active duty with the Armed Forces of
    the Philippines until his reversion to inactive status on 15 November 1960,
    pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. 2332.
    June 18, 1955, the date when Republic Act No. 1382 took effect,
    petitioner had a total of 9 years, 4 months and 12 days of accumulated
    active commissioned service in the Armed Forces of the Philippines;
    On July 11, 1956, the date when Republic Act 1600 took effect,
    petitioner had an accumulated active commissioned service of 10 years, 5
    months and 5 days in the Armed Forces of the Philippines;
    Petitioner's reversion to inactive status on 15 November 1960 was
    pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act 2334, and such reversion was
    neither for cause, at his own request, nor after court-martial proceedings;
    From 15 November 1960 up to the present, petitioner has been on
    inactive status and as such, he has neither received any emoluments from
    the Armed Forces of the Philippines, nor was he ever employed in the
    Government in any capacity;
    On September 17, 1969 the petitioner brought an action for
    "Mandamus and Recovery of a Sum of Money" in the court a quo to compel
    the respondents Secretary of National Defense and Chief of Staff of the
    Armed Forces of the Philippines to reinstate him in the active commissioned
    service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, to readjust his rank, and to
    pay all the emoluments and allowances due to him from the time of his
    reversion to inactive status.
    However, the respondents contend that the paragraph 11 has no
    relevance or pertinence whatsoever to the budget in question or to any
    appropriation item contained law since RA 1600 is about appropriation of
    money for the operation of the Government for the fiscal year 1956-1957,
    while the said paragraph 11 refers to the fundamental government policy
    matters of the calling to active duty and the reversion to inactive status of
    reserve officers in the AFP. and is therefore proscribed by Art. VI, Sec. 19,
    par. 2 4 of the 1935 Constitution of the Philippines, which reads:

    No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general


    appropriation bill unless it relates specifically to some particular
    appropriation therein; and any such provision or enactment shall
    be limited in its operation to such appropriation.
    Issue:
    WON paragraph 11 RA 1600 is unconstitutional. Does it contain rider in an
    appropriation bill?

    Held:
    YES.
    The incongruity and irrelevancy are already evident. Section 11 of RA 1600
    fails to disclose the relevance to any appropriation item.
    RA 1600 is , is restricted to "appropriating funds for the operation of the government while
    Section 11 refers to a fundamental governmental policy of calling to active
    duty and the reversion of inactive statute of reserve officers in the AFP.

    That reserve officers with at least ten years of active accumulated commissioned service who
    are still on active duty at the time of the approval of this Act shall not be reverted to inactive status
    except for cause after proper court-martial proceedings or upon their request;

    Hence it was A NON-APPROPRIATION ITEM INSERTED IN AN APPROPRIATION


    MEASURE, in violation of the constitutional prohibition against RIDERS to the
    general appropriation act. It was a completely unrelated provision attached
    to the GAA.

    It also violates the rule on one-bill, one subject. The subject to be considered
    must be expressed in the title of the act. When an act contains provisions
    which are clearly not embraced in the subject of the act, as expressed in the
    title, such provisions are void, inoperative and without effect.

    SECTION 11 is unconstitutional. Garcia cannot compel the AFP to reinstate


    him.

    You might also like