Political and Public International Law › Executive Department › Powers of the President

9. Veto Powers

Veto Powers

The President must communicate his decision to veto within 30 days from the date of receipt thereof. If he fails to do so, the bill shall become law as if he signed it. This rule eliminates the possibility of a ‘pocket veto’ whereby the President simply refuses to act on the bill.

In exercising the veto power, the bill is rejected and returned with his objections to the House from which it originated. The House shall enter the objections in the journal and proceed to reconsider it. (See earlier comment)

Pocket Veto vs. Item Veto

POCKET VETO ITEM VETO
Not available under the 1987 Constitution. If the President does not communicate a veto within 30 days from receipt, the bill becomes law as if signed. (1987 Constitution, Article VI, Section 27(1)) Power of the President to veto particular items in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill without vetoing the entire bill, subject to the doctrine of inappropriate provisions. (1987 Constitution, Article VI, Section 27(2); Gonzales v. Macaraig, G.R. No. 87636, November 19, 1990)

Doctrine of Inappropriate Provision

A provision that is constitutionally inappropriate for an appropriation bill may be singled out for veto even if it is not an appropriation or revenue item.

Item Veto

General Rule: As a general rule, if the President disapproves of a provision in a bill approved by congress, he must veto the entire bill.

Exception: As an exception, the President is allowed to item-veto in these types of bills: (ART)

  • Appropriation
  • Revenue, and
  • Tariff (Sec. 27 (2))

Exceptions to the Exception

DOCTRINE OF INAPPROPRIATE PROVISIONS - A provision that is constitutionally inappropriate for an appropriation bill may be subject to veto even if it is not an appropriation or revenue “item”. (Gonzales v. Macaraig, Jr., G.R. No. 87636, Nov. 19, 1990).

EXECUTIVE IMPOUNDMENT - Refusal of the President to spend funds already allocated by Congress for a specific purpose. It is in effect, an “impoundment” of the law allocating such expenditure of funds.

NOTE: Executive withholding of appropriated funds is subject to constitutional and statutory limits; it is not an unrestricted presidential power. The treatment of impoundment should be assessed in light of Araullo v. Aquino III, G.R. No. 209287 and consolidated cases, July 1, 2014.

Grounds for the veto power of the Local Chief Executive

  • Ultra vires
  • Prejudicial to public welfare

Authorities

  • 1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 27
  • Gonzalez v. Macaraig, Jr., G.R. No. 87636