Practice question
A general appropriations bill allocates a specific amount for road maintenance and attaches a lawful condition restricting the proportion to be contracted out. The condition relates directly and exclusively to that appropriation and does not amend another law or infringe a constitutional executive power. The President keeps the appropriation but vetoes only the restriction because a different allocation would be more efficient. Under PHILCONSA, which analysis is best?
- Efficiency alone permits deletion of any genuine appropriation condition
- The President cannot use an item veto merely to strip this genuine condition while retaining the related appropriation
- Every restriction is an inappropriate rider regardless of its relation to the item
- The restriction becomes optional because the President signs the balance
- The President may replace the restriction with any preferred percentage by veto message
Legal references
- 1987 Constitution, Article VI, Section 27, presidential veto, period, override and item veto: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/3/353
- Philippine Constitution Association v. Enriquez, G.R. Nos. 113105, 113174, 113766 and 113888, August 19, 1994, main decision, item veto and appropriate versus inappropriate provisions: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/aug1994/gr_113105_1994.html
- 1987 Constitution, Article VI, Section 25(2), provisions in the general appropriations bill: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/3/353
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.