[ G.R. No. L-33713. July 30, 1975 ] 160 Phil. 536
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. L-33713. July 30, 1975 ]
EUSEBIO B. GARCIA, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. HON. ERNESTO S. MATA, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, AND GENERAL MANUEL T. YAN, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS AND APPELLEES. D E C I S I O N
CASTRO, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari to review the decision of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City, Branch IX, in civil case Q-13466, entitled “Eusebio B. Garcia, petitioner, vs. Hon. Ernesto Mata (Juan Ponce Enrile), et al., respondents,” declaring paragraph 11 of the “Special Provisions for the Armed Forces of the Philippines” of Republic Act No. 1600[1] unconstitutional and therefore invalid and inoperative. We affirm the judgment a quo. The facts material to this case are embodied in the following stipulation submitted jointly by both parties to the lower court:
“Petitioner was a reserve officer on active duty with the Armed Forces of the Philippines until his reversion to inactive status on 15 November 1960, pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. 2334. At the time of reversion, Petitioner held the rank of Captain with a monthly emolument of P478.00, comprising his base and longevity pay, quarters and subsistence allowances; “On June 18, 1955, the date when Republic Act No. 1382 took effect, petitioner had a total of 9 years, 4 months and 12 days of accumulated active commissioned service in the Armed Forces of the Philippines; “On July 11, 1956, the date when Republic Act 1600 took effect, petitioner had an accumulated active commissioned service of 10 years, 5 months and 5 days in the Armed Forces of the Philippines; “Petitioner’s reversion to inactive status on 15 November 1960 was pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act 2334, and such reversion was neither for cause, at his own request, nor after court-martial proceedings; “From 15 November 1960 up to the present, petitioner has been on inactive status and as such, he has neither received any emoluments from the Armed Forces of the Philippines, nor was he ever employed in the Government in any capacity; “As a consequence of his reversion to inactive status, petitioner filed the necessary petitions with the offices of the AFP Chief of Staff, the Secretary of National Defense, and the President, respectively, but received reply only from the Chief of Staff through the AFP Adjutant General.”
On September 17, 1969 the petitioner brought an action for “Mandamus and Recovery of a Sum of Money” in the court a quo to compel the respondents Secretary of National Defense and Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines[2] to reinstate him in the active commissioned service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, to readjust his rank, and to pay all the emoluments and allowances due to him from the time of his reversion to inactive status. On December 2, 1970 the trial court dismissed the petition. The court ruled that paragraph 11 of the “Special Provisions for the Armed Forces of the Philippines” in Republic Act 1600 is “invalid, unconstitutional and inoperative.” The petitioner had a total of 9 years, 4 months and 12 days of accumulated active commissioned service in the AFP when Republic Act 1382 took effect on June 18, 1955. Section 1 of this law provided:
“Reserve officers with at least ten years of active accumulated commissioned service who are still on active duty at the time of the approval of this Act shall not be reverted into inactive status except for cause after proper court-martial proceedings or upon their own request: Provided, That for purposes of computing the length of service, six months or more of active service shall be considered one year.” (Italics supplied)
The petitioner’s accumulated active commissioned service was thus short of the minimum service requirement prescribed in the aforequoted provision of R.A. 1382. On July 11, 1956,[3] while the petitioner was yet in the active service, Republic Act 1600 was enacted into law. Paragraph 11 of the SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES (on page 892 of the Act) provided as follows:
“11. After the approval of this Act, and when there is no emergency, no reserve officer of the Armed Forces of the Philippines may be called to a tour of active duty for more than two years during any period of five consecutive years: PROVIDED, That hereafter reserve officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines on active duty for more than two years on the date of the approval of this Act except those whose military and educational training, experience and qualifications are deemed essential to the needs of the service, shall be reverted to inactive status within one year from the approval of this Act: PROVIDED, FURTHER, That reserve officers with at least ten years of active accumulated commissioned service who are still on active duty at the time of the approval of this Act shall not be reverted to inactive status except for cause after proper court-martial proceedings or upon their request; PROVIDED, FURTHER, That any such reserve officer reverted to inactive status who has at least five years of active commissioned service shall be entitled to a gratuity equivalent to one month’s authorized base and longevity pay in the rank held at the time of such reversion for every year of active commissioned service; PROVIDED, FURTHER, That any reserve officer who receives a gratuity under the provisions of this Act shall not except during a National emergency or mobilization, be called to a tour of active duty within five years from the date of reversion: PROVIDED, FURTHER, That the Secretary of National Defense is authorized to extend the tour of active duty of reserve officers who are qualified military pilots and doctors: PROVIDED, FURTHER, That any savings in the appropriations authorized in this Act for the Department of National Defense notwithstanding any provision of this Act to the contrary and any unexpended balance of certification to accounts payable since 1 July 1949 regardless of purpose of the appropriation shall be made available for the purpose of this paragraph: AND PROVIDED, FINALLY, That the Secretary of National Defense shall render a quarterly report to Congress as to the implementation of the provisions of this paragraph.” (pp. 892-893, RA 1600) (Italics supplied)
The petitioner consequently argues that his reversion to inactive status on November 15, 1960 was in violation of the abovequoted provision which prohibits the reversion to inactive status of reserve officers on active duty with at least ten years of accumulated active commissioned service. On the other hand, the respondents contend that the said provision has no relevance or pertinence whatsoever to the budget in question or to any appropriation item contained therein, and is therefore proscribed by Art. VI, Sec. 19, par. 2[4] of the 1935 Constitution of the Philippines, which reads:
“No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriation bill unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriation therein; and any such provision or enactment shall be limited in its operation to such appropriation.”
A perusal of the challenged provision of R.A. 1600 fails to disclose its relevance or relation to any appropriation item therein, or to the Appropriation Act, as a whole. From the very first clause of paragraph 11 itself, which reads,
“After the approval of this Act, and when there is no emergency, no reserve officer of the Armed Forces of the Philippines may be called to a tour of active duty for more than two years during any period of five consecutive years:”
the incongruity and irrelevancy are already evident. While R.A. 1600 appropriated money for the operation of the Government for the fiscal year 1956-1957, the said paragraph 11 refers to the fundamental governmental policy matters of the calling to active duty and the reversion to inactive status of reserve officers in the AFP. The incongruity and irrelevancy continue throughout the entire paragraph. In the language of the respondents-appellees, “it was a non-appropriation item inserted in an appropriation measure in violation of the constitutional inhibition against ‘riders’ to the general appropriation act.” It was indeed a new and completely unrelated provision attached to the Appropriation Act. The paragraph in question also violated Art. VI, Sec. 21, par. 1[5] of the 1935 Constitution of the Philippines which provided that “No bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject which shall be expressed in the title of the bill.” This constitutional requirement nullified and rendered inoperative any provision contained in the body of an act that was not fairly included in the subject expressed in the title or was not germane to or properly connected with that subject. In determining whether a provision contained in an act is embraced in the subject and is properly connected therewith, the subject to be considered is the one expressed in the title of the act, and every fair intendment and reasonable doubt should be indulged in favor of the validity of the legislative enactment. But when an act contains provisions which are clearly not embraced in the subject of the act, as expressed in the title, such provisions are inoperative and without effect. We are mindful that the title of an act is not required to be an index to the body of the act. Thus, in Sumulong vs. Comelec, 73 Phil. 288, 291, this Court held that it is “a sufficient compliance with such requirement if the title expresses the general subject and all the provisions of the statute are germane to that general subject.” The constitutional provision was intended to preclude the insertion of riders in legislation, a rider being a provision not germane to the subject-matter of the bill.[6] The subject of R.A. 1600, as expressed in its title, is restricted to “appropriating funds for the operation of the government.” Any provision contained in the body of the act that is fairly included in this restricted subject or any matter properly connected therewith is valid and operative. But, if a provision in the body of the act is not fairly included in this restricted subject, like the provision relating to the policy matters of calling to active duty and reversion to inactive duty of reserve officers of the AFP, such provision is inoperative and of no effect. To quote the respondents-appellees on this point:
“It is obvious that the statutory provision in question refers to security of reserve officers from reversion to inactive status, whereas the subject or title of the statute from which it derives its existence refers to appropriations. Verily, it runs contrary to or is repugnant to the above-quoted injunctive provision of the Constitution. Where a conflict arises between a statute and the Constitution, the latter prevails. It should be emphasized that a Constitution is superior to a statute and is precisely called the ‘supreme law of the land’ because it is the fundamental or organic law which states the general principles and builds the substantial foundation and general framework of law and government, and for that reason a statute contrary to or in violation of the Constitution is null and void (Talabon vs. Iloilo Provincial Warden, 78 Phil. 599). If a law, therefore, happens to infringe upon or violate the fundamental law, courts of justice may step in to nullify its effectiveness (Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito, 78 Phil. 1).”
Upon the foregoing dissertation, we declare Paragraph 11 of the SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES as unconstitutional, invalid and inoperative. Being unconstitutional, it confers no right and affords no protection. In legal contemplation it is as though it has never been passed.[7] Verily, not having shown a clear legal right to the position to which he desires to be restored, the petitioner cannot compel the respondents to reinstate and/or call him to active duty, promote or readjust his rank, much less pay him back emoluments and allowances. ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition is denied, and the decision of the lower court dismissing the complaint is hereby affirmed. No pronouncement as to costs. Makalintal, C.J., Fernando, Makasiar, Esguerra, Muñoz Palma, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., and Martin, JJ., concur. Barredo, J., concurs with a separate opinion. Teehankee, J., is on leave. Antonio, J., took no part.