271059/271347/E-02472/E-04036  Concurring and Dissenting Opinion: Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez — Official PDF

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion 19 G.R. Nos. 271059, 271347, E-02472 & E-04036 Section 26. 2. No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calami1y or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal. This provision requires that, before bills can become law, they must pass through three readings on separate days, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. The purpose underlying this requirement is: "1) to infonn the legislators of the matters they shall vote on; and (2) to give them n9tice that a measure is in progress through the enactment process."78 In other words, this ens~res that members. of Congress have sufficieµt 9ppo]'.t:unity to study the subject matter of a pending bill, including a general appropriations bill, allowing them to contribute intelligently to the deliberations and discussion pertinent to its passage. As to substantial limitations, it goes without saying that, even without an express Constitutional provision, public funds may be used only for a public purpose. The Congress is "without power to appropriate public revenue for anything but a public purpose."79 The scope of public purpose includes "not only activities that will benefit the community as a body and are related to the traditional functions of gove111ment, but al~o those designed to promote social justice, general welfare, and the common good."80 In Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works, 81 this Court invalidated the use of public funds to build roads on private property, as this wrs deemed a private, not a public purpose. 82 . . . . In relation to this, Congress is proh~bited from using public money or property for the sole purpose of benefittng or supporting any church or religion under Article v'I, Section 29(2)83 of the Constitution. The prohibition applies when the appropriation is primarilf intended for the furtherance of a ' ' 78 Kida v. Serlate of the Philippines~ 67J PhiL J J6, 353 (.7.0110 LPi.:r J. BriOn, 'En Barie]. (Citation omitted) 79 Pascual v. Secretary ofPubl-ic Works, l IO Phii 33 l, 33f7, 338 (1960) [Per J. Concepcion]. 80 Ba:wasanta v. People, 915 .Phil. 577, 594 (202 I) (Per Lf]aerhm, Second Division]. (Citation omitted) " 11 O Phil. 331 (l Y60)f Per J. Coecepcion]. • , 82 Id at 338. • • 83 CONST., art. VI, sec. 29(2) states: Section 29. l (2) No public money or property shall be appropriated, plied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or 5upport of .ci.ny sect, church, d4nomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, pread~er, minister, or other rel1g~ous teacher, er dignitary as such, e~ce~t w?en such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary 'is assigned 1to the aimed forces~ or to any penal mst1tut1on, ~ or government orphanage or leprosarium, ' (