DEMETRIA V ALBA

Feb 27, 1987

Facts:

Petitioners assail the constitutionality of 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.