HELD No By a 9 6 vote the Supreme Court rejected the challenge holding that

Held no by a 9 6 vote the supreme court rejected the

This preview shows page 6 - 7 out of 12 pages.

HELD: No. By a 9-6 vote, the Supreme Court rejected the challenge, holding that such consolidation was consistent with the power of the Senate to propose or concur with amendments to the version originated in the HoR. What the Constitution simply means, according to the 9 justices, is that the initiative must come from the HoR. Note also that there were several instances before where Senate passed its own version rather than having the HoR version as far as revenue and other such bills are concerned. This practice of amendment by substitution has always been accepted. The proposition of Tolentino concerns a mere matter of form. There is no showing that it would make a significant difference if Senate were to adopt his over what has been done. PASCUAL VS. SEC. OF PUBLIC WORKS 110 Phil. 331 – Political Law – Appropriation For Private Use Not Allowed FACTS: In 1953, Republic Act No. 920 was passed. This law appropriated P85, 000.00 “for the construction, reconstruction, repair, extension and improvement Pasig feeder road terminals”. Wenceslao Pascual, then governor of Rizal, assailed the validity of the law. He claimed that the appropriation was actually going to be used for private use for the terminals sought to be improved were part of the Antonio Subdivision. The said Subdivision is owned by Senator Jose Zulueta who was a member of the same Senate that passed and approved the same RA. Pascual claimed that Zulueta misrepresented in Congress the fact that he owns those terminals and that his property would be unlawfully enriched at the expense of the taxpayers if the said RA would be upheld. Pascual then prayed that the Secretary of Public Works and Communications be restrained from releasing funds for such purpose. Zulueta, on the other hand, perhaps as an afterthought, donated the said property to the City of Pasig. ISSUE: Whether or not the appropriation is valid. HELD: No, the appropriation is void for being an appropriation for a private purpose. 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. “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.” Inasmuch as the land on which the projected feeder roads were to be constructed belonged then to Zulueta, the result is that said appropriation sought a private purpose, and, hence, was null and void. PEPSI COLA VS. MUNICIPALITY OF TANAUAN 69 SCRA 460 – Taxation – Delegation to Local Governments – Double Taxation Pepsi Cola has a bottling plant in the Municipality of Tanauan, Leyte. In September 1962, the Municipality approved Ordinance No. 23 which levies and collects “from soft drinks producers and manufacturers a tai of one- sixteenth (1/16) of a centavo for every bottle of soft drink corked.”
Image of page 6
Image of page 7

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture