Practice question
A general appropriations bill includes a provision that has no connection to any particular appropriation. Instead, it permanently rewrites an unrelated regulatory statute. Congress labels it a special budget condition and argues that the label makes it immune from a separate presidential veto. Assuming the provision is genuinely unrelated as stated, which analysis best follows Philippine Constitution Association v. Enriquez?
- Its placement in the budget always makes it veto-proof
- A permanent statutory amendment automatically becomes an expenditure item in the ordinary accounting sense
- The provision is valid only if every legislator signs it
- The President may veto any genuine budget condition without distinction
- An inappropriate provision of this kind may be treated as an item for the separate veto; the label is not controlling
Legal references
- Philippine Constitution Association v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 113105 and consolidated cases, August 19, 1994, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/aug1994/gr_113105_1994.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.