GR L-33713, 30 July 1975

Garcia vs Mata

Facts:

Petitioner Garcia is a reserve officer with more than ten (10) years
accumulated active commissioned service in the Armed Forces of the Phillipines
prior to his reversion to inactive status on November 15, 1960 pursuant to Republic
Act No. 2334 “An Act Providing for the Rotation of the Reserve Officers of the
Philippines in the Active Military Service” which took effect on June 19, 1959.

Petitioner’s inactive status rendered him ineligible to receive any emoluments

from the Armed Forces of the Philippines.

On the basis of paragraph 11 of the "Special Provisions for the Armed Forces
of the Philippines" in Republic Act No. 1600 (National Budget FY 1955-1956) which
prohibits the reversion to inactive status of reserve officers on active duty with at
least ten (10) years of accumulated active commissioned service, petitioner filed an
action for "Mandamus and Recovery of a Sum of Money" against the Secretary of
National Defense and Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.

The respondents contend that the said provision has no relevance or

pertinence to the budget in question, a non-appropriation item inserted in an
appropriation measure and is therefore proscribed by Art. VI, Sec. 19, par. 24 of the
1935 Constitution of the Philippines.

The trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that the provision relied
upon by the petitioner is "invalid, unconstitutional and inoperative."

Issue:

Whether Paragraph 11 of RA 1600 violates the rule on “rider.”

Ruling:

Yes. The subject of R.A. 1600, as expressed in its title, is restricted to

appropriating funds for the operation of the government. Paragraph 11 refers to the
fundamental governmental policy of calling to active duty and the reversion to
inactive status of reserve officers in the AFP. This is clearly a non-appropriation item
inserted in an appropriation measure in violation of the Constitutional inhibition
against “riders” to the GAA.

Art. VI, Sec. 19, par. 2[4] of the 1935 Constitution of the Philippines, provides
that, "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."

The paragraph in question also violated Art. VI, Sec. 21, par. 1[5] of the 1935
Constitution of the Philippines which provided that "No bill which may be enacted into
law shall embrace more than one subject which shall be expressed in the title of the
bill."

The petition is denied and the decision of the court a quo is affirmed.