EUSEBIO B. GARCIA, petitioner-appellant,
vs.
HON. ERNESTO S. MATA, Secretary of National Defense, and GENERAL MANUEL T. YAN, Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines, respondents-appellees.
65 SCRA 517
No. L-33713; July 30, 1975 En Banc ; Justice Castro
POWER OF APPROPRIATION, Constitutional Limitations Art VI, Sec 25. A non-appropriation item may not be inserted in an appropriation measure.
Art VI, sec 25(2)
Facts:
Garcia was a reserve officer who was reverted into inactive status. Since his reversion, he has not received any emoluments from the AFP nor was he ever employed in the govt in any capacity. Relying on par 11 of RA 1600 (General Appropriations Act of FY 1956-57), he now petitions, among others, to compel the Sec. of National Defense Mata et al., to reinstate him in the AFP and be paid the allowances due to him from the time of his reversion. The court held that par 11 relied on is unconstitutional and therefore inoperative. Hence this petition for certiorari. Said paragraph begins with “… when there is no emergency, no reserve officer of the AFP may be called to a tour of active duty for more than two years…” and goes on to state that “xxx reserve officers with at least 10 years of active accumulated commissioned service xxx shall not be reverted to inactive status xxx”
Issue:
Is Paragraph 11 a “rider” in the GAA of FY 1956-1957 (RA 1600)?
Held:
Yes. Par 11 is thus invalid. Par 11 relied on refers to the fundamental governmental policy of the calling to active duty and the reversion to inactive status of reserve officers in the AFP. It was a non-appropriation item inserted in an appropriation measure in violation of the Constitutional inhibition against “riders” to the GAA [now in Art VI, sec 25(2)]. Petition denied.*
* The same par 11 was also held in violation of Art VI, Sec 26(1) which requires all bills to embrace no more than one subject which shall be expressed in the title. (Garcia v. Mata, 65 SCRA 517)
LAW I.Q. 