Bolinao vs.

Valencia

Bolinao Electronics Corporation was the co-owner and a co-petitioner of Chronicle Broadcasting Network, Inc.
(CBN) and Montserrat Broadcasting System Inc. They operate and own television (channel 9) and radio stations
in the Philippines. They were summoned by Brigido Valencia, then Secretary of Communications, for operating
even after their permit has expired. Valencia claimed that because of CBN’s continued operation sans license
and their continuing operation had caused damages to his department.

ISSUE: Whether or not Valencia is entitled to claim for damages.

HELD: The SC ruled in the negative. Valencia failed to show that any right of his has been violated by the refusal
of CBN to cease operation. Further, the SC noted that as the records show, the appropriation to operate the
Philippine Broadcasting Service as approved by Congress and incorporated in the 1962-1963 Budget of the
Republic of the Philippines does not allow appropriations for TV stations particularly in Luzon. Hence, since there
was no appropriation allotted then there can be no damage; and if there are expenditures made by Valencia’s
department they are in fact in violation of the law and they cannot claim damages therefrom. And even if it is
shown that the then president vetoed this provision of the Budget Act, such veto is illegal because he may not
legally veto a condition attached to an appropriation or item in the appropriation bill.

Note: This ruling, that the executive’s veto power does not carry with it the power to strike out conditions or
restrictions, has been adhered to in subsequent cases. If the veto is unconstitutional, it follows that the same
produced no effect whatsoever; and the restriction imposed by the appropriation bill, therefore, remains.