Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works GR No. L-10405,December 29,1960
FACTS:
Ra 920 (An act appropriating funds for public works) was enacted in 1953 containing an item for the construction,
reconstruction, repair, extension of Pasig feeder road terminals – currently projected and planned subdivision roads, which were not yet constructed, within Antonio Subdivision owned by Senator Jose C. Zulueta. The provincial governor of Rizal, Pascual, questioned the constitutionality of the item in RA 920, it being not for a public purpose. The lower court dismissed the petition upon the ground that petitioner may not contest the legality because the same does not affect him directly. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Does petitioner have legal standing to sue?
RULING:
Yes.
It is well-stated that the validity of a statute may be contested only by one who will sustain a direct injury in consequence of its enforcement. Yet, there are as many decisions nullifying, at the instance of taxpayers, laws providing the disbursement of public funds.
Thus, the general rule is that not only persons individually affected, but also taxpayers, have sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of moneys raised by taxation and may therefore question the constitutionality of statutes requiring expenditure of public moneys.
Thus, the records are remanded to the lower court for further proceedings. Where the land on which feeder roads were to be constructed belongs to a private person, an appropriation made by congress for that purpose is null and void, and a donation to the government made five months after the approval of the Act does not cure the basic defect of the law.
Digest # 2
Facts:
Governor Wenceslao Pascual of Rizal instituted this action for declaratory relief, with injunction, upon the ground that RA No. 920, which appropriates funds for public works particularly for the construction and improvement of Pasig feeder road terminals. Some of the feeder roads, however, as alleged and as contained in the tracings attached to the petition, were nothing but projected and planned subdivision roads, not yet constructed within the Antonio Subdivision, belonging to private respondent Zulueta, situated at Pasig, Rizal; and which projected feeder roads do not connect any government property or any important premises to the main highway. The respondents' contention is that there is public purpose because people living in the subdivision will directly be benefitted from the construction of the roads, and the government also gains from the donation of the land supposed to be occupied by the streets, made by its owner to the government.
Issue:
Whether or not the incidental gains by the public be considered "public purpose" for the purpose of justifying an expenditure of the government
Ruling:
No. It is a general rule that the legislature is without power to appropriate public revenue for anything but a public purpose. It is the essential character of the direct object of the expenditure which must determine its validity as justifying a tax, and not the magnitude of the interest to be affected nor the degree to which the general advantage of the community, and thus the public welfare, may be ultimately benefited by their promotion. Incidental to the public or to the state, which results from the promotion of private interest and the prosperity of private enterprises or business, does not justify their aid by the use public money.
The test of the constitutionality of a statute requiring the use of public funds is whether the statute is designed to promote the public interest, as opposed to the furtherance of the advantage of individuals, although each advantage to individuals might incidentally serve the public.
Governor Wenceslao Pascual of Rizal instituted this action for declaratory relief, with injunction, upon the ground that RA No. 920, which appropriates funds for public works particularly for the construction and improvement of Pasig feeder road terminals. Some of the feeder roads, however, as alleged and as contained in the tracings attached to the petition, were nothing but projected and planned subdivision roads, not yet constructed within the Antonio Subdivision, belonging to private respondent Zulueta, situated at Pasig, Rizal; and which projected feeder roads do not connect any government property or any important premises to the main highway. The respondents' contention is that there is public purpose because people living in the subdivision will directly be benefitted from the construction of the roads, and the government also gains from the donation of the land supposed to be occupied by the streets, made by its owner to the government.
Issue:
Whether or not the incidental gains by the public be considered "public purpose" for the purpose of justifying an expenditure of the government
Ruling:
No. It is a general rule that the legislature is without power to appropriate public revenue for anything but a public purpose. It is the essential character of the direct object of the expenditure which must determine its validity as justifying a tax, and not the magnitude of the interest to be affected nor the degree to which the general advantage of the community, and thus the public welfare, may be ultimately benefited by their promotion. Incidental to the public or to the state, which results from the promotion of private interest and the prosperity of private enterprises or business, does not justify their aid by the use public money.
The test of the constitutionality of a statute requiring the use of public funds is whether the statute is designed to promote the public interest, as opposed to the furtherance of the advantage of individuals, although each advantage to individuals might incidentally serve the public.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment