Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 733 views

    Demetria v. Alba

    Uploaded by

    Francis Coronel Jr.
    This case concerns the constitutionality of Section 44 of Presidential Decree No. 1177, known as the Budget Reform Decree of 1977. The petitioners argue that Section 44 infringes on the constitution by allowing illegal transfer of public funds and undue delegation of legislative powers to the President. The respondent contends that the issue is moot since the constitutional provision it was based on has been abrogated. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled Section 44 unconstitutional as it overextends the President's powers and disregards constitutional standards, amounting to an undue delegation of legislative powers.

    Copyright:

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

    Demetria v. Alba

    Uploaded by

    Francis Coronel Jr.
    733 views1 page
    This case concerns the constitutionality of Section 44 of Presidential Decree No. 1177, known as the Budget Reform Decree of 1977. The petitioners argue that Section 44 infringes on the constitution by allowing illegal transfer of public funds and undue delegation of legislative powers to the President. The respondent contends that the issue is moot since the constitutional provision it was based on has been abrogated. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled Section 44 unconstitutional as it overextends the President's powers and disregards constitutional standards, amounting to an undue delegation of legislative powers.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case concerns the constitutionality of Section 44 of Presidential Decree No. 1177, known as the Budget Reform Decree of 1977. The petitioners argue that Section 44 infringes on the constitution by allowing illegal transfer of public funds and undue delegation of legislative powers to the President. The respondent contends that the issue is moot since the constitutional provision it was based on has been abrogated. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled Section 44 unconstitutional as it overextends the President's powers and disregards constitutional standards, amounting to an undue delegation of legislative powers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as txt, pdf, or txt
    733 views1 page

    Demetria v. Alba

    Uploaded by

    Francis Coronel Jr.
    This case concerns the constitutionality of Section 44 of Presidential Decree No. 1177, known as the Budget Reform Decree of 1977. The petitioners argue that Section 44 infringes on the constitution by allowing illegal transfer of public funds and undue delegation of legislative powers to the President. The respondent contends that the issue is moot since the constitutional provision it was based on has been abrogated. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled Section 44 unconstitutional as it overextends the President's powers and disregards constitutional standards, amounting to an undue delegation of legislative powers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as txt, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    DEMETRIA v.

    ALBA

    Facts: Assailed in this petition for prohibition with prayer for a writ of
    preliminary injunction is the constitutionality
    of the first paragraph of Section 44 of Presidential Decree No. 1177, otherwise
    known as the "Budget Reform Decree of 1977."

    Petitioners, Demetrio Demetria et al,, filed the instant petition as concerned


    citizens, as members of the National Assembly/Batasan
    Pambansa representing millions of their constituents, as parties with general
    interest common to all the people of the Philippines,
    and as taxpayers whose vital interests may be affected by the outcome of the
    reliefs prayed for.

    They contends that Section 44 of the Decree 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 respondent, Manuel Alba, then Finance Minister, contends 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 President…may 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: Whether or not Presidential Decree No. 1177 is unconstitional.

    Ruling: Yes. The Supreme Court held that Paragraph 1 of Section 44 of P.D. No. 1177
    unduly over extends the privilege granted under said Section 16[5].
    It empowers the President to indiscriminately transfer funds from one department,
    bureau, office or agency of the Executive Department to any program,
    project or activity of any department, bureau or office included in the General
    Appropriations Act or approved after its enactment, without regard as to
    whether or not the funds to be transferred are actually savings in the item from
    which the same are to be taken, or whether or not the transfer is for
    the purpose of augmenting the item to which said transfer is to be made.

    It does not only completely disregard the standards set in the fundamental law,
    thereby amounting to an undue delegation of legislative powers, but likewise
    goes beyond the tenor thereof. Indeed, such constitutional infirmities render the
    provision in question null and void.

    "For the love of money is the root of all evil: ..." and money belonging to no one
    in particular, i.e. public funds, provide an even greater temptation for
    misappropriation and embezzlement. This, evidently, was foremost in the minds of
    the framers of the constitution in meticulously prescribing the rules
    regarding the appropriation and disposition of public funds as embodied in Sections
    16 and 18 of Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution.w

    You might also like