Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works Concepcion, J.

Petitioner: Wenceslao Pascual (Rizal Prov. Governor)

Respondent: Sec. of Public Works & Communications
Concept: Inherent Limitations: Public Purposes

Brief Facts: RA 920 (An act appropriating funds for

public works) was passed in 1953, appropriating Php
85,000.00 for the construction, reconstruction, repair,
extension and improvement Pasig feeder road
terminals.
Wenceslao
Pascual,
Rizal
Provincial
Governor, assailed the validity of the law, claiming that
the appropriation was actually going to be used for
private use since the terminals were part of the
Antonio Subdivision owned by Senator Jose Zulueta
(who was a member of the same Senate that passed
and approved the RA 920). Zulueta donated the said
property to Pasig, only 5 months after RA 920 was
passed, not before.

Zulueta: There is public purpose for the feeder roads.

o People living in the subdivision will directly be
benefitted from the construction of the roads
o The government also gains from the donation
of the land supposed to be occupied by the
streets.

Doctrine: If the public advantage or benefit is merely

incidental in promotion of a particular enterprise, such
defect shall render the law invalid. On the other hand,
if what is incidental is the promotion of a private
enterprise the tax law shall be deemed for a public
purpose.
FACTS:
1. On May, 1953, Jose Zulueta, in a letter to the
Municipal Council of Pasig, Rizal, offered a donation
projected feeder roads to the municipality of Pasig,
Rizal.
2. The projected Pasig feeder road terminals were:
Gen. Roxas Gen. Araneta Gen. Lucban Gen.
Capinpin Gen. Segundo Gen. Delgado Gen.
Malvar Gen. Lim.
3. However, no deed of donation in favor of the
municipality of Pasig was executed.
4. RA 920 (An act appropriating funds for public
works) was passed on June 3, 1953.
5. The Act appropriated Php 85,000.00 for the
construction, reconstruction, repair, extension and
improvement of the said Pasig feeder road
terminals.
6. Zulueta was a member of the same Senate that
passed and approved the RA 920.
7. Zulueta donated the lands to be used for the
feeder roads on December 12, 1953, 5 months
after the RA 920 was passed.
8. On August 31, 1954, Wenceslao Pascual, Rizal
Provincial Governor, filed at CFI Rizal for Declaraory
Relief and Preliminary Injunction.
9. Pascual assailed the validity of the law, claiming
that the appropriation was actually going to be
used for private use since the terminals were part
of the Antonio Subdivision owned by Senator Jose
Zulueta.
Pascual: The planned feeder roads would relieve
Zulueta the responsibility of improving the road which
is inside his private subdivision.
o The said roads are nothing but projected and
planned subdivision roads, not yet constructed
within the Antonio Subdivision.
o The projected feeder roads do not connect any
government property or any important
premises to the main highway.

In order to have the Act passed, the

Congressmen were made to believe that the
projected feeder roads in question were public
roads and not private streets of a private
subdivision.
In order to give a semblance of legality, when
there is absolutely none, Zulueta, while he was
a Senator, donated the four (4) parcels of land
constituting said projected feeder roads to the
government on 1953, months after the law was
passed.

CFI: This would greatly enhance or increase the value

of the subdivision of Zulueta.
o The appropriation in question was clearly for a
private, not a public purpose.
However, CFI dismissed the case of Pascual for lack
of legal standing (since he does not have an
interest that will be injured by said donation A
Different Issue)
Hence the appeal.

ISSUES:
1. WON the appropriation is valid? (NO)
RATIO:
1. NO. The appropriation is void for being an
appropriation for a private purpose.

The land on which the projected feeder roads were

to be constructed belonged to Senator Zulueta at
the time RA 920 was passed by Congress.
o The subsequent donation of the property to the
government to make the property public does
not cure the constitutional defect. The fact that
the law was passed when the said property was
still a private property cannot be ignored.
o The validity of a stature depends on the powers
of the Congress at the time of its passage or
approval, not upon events occurring, or acts
performed subsequent thereto, unless it is an
amendment of the organic law.

The right of the legislature to appropriate funds is

correlative with its right to tax, under constitutional
provisions against taxation except for public
purposes and prohibiting the collection of a tax for
one purpose and the devotion thereof to another
purpose, no appropriation of state funds can be
made for other than a public purpose.

In accordance with the rule that the taxing power

must be exercised for public purposes only, money
raised by taxation can be expanded only for public
purposes and not for the advantage of private
individuals.

The test of the constitutionality of a statute

requiring the use of public funds is whether the
statute is designed to promote the public interest,
as opposed to the furtherance of the advantage of

individuals, although each advantage to individuals

might incidentally serve the public.
The public purpose of the tax law must exist at the
time of its enactment.
o RA 920 is unconstitutional because the
Congress is without power to appropriate public
revenue for anything but public purpose.
o The said appropriation sought a private
purpose, and, hence, was null and void.
DISPOSITIVE: The Decision appealed from is
REVERSED. The Records are REMANDED to Lower Court
for further proceedings.
Digested by: Andr