8/8/2019 Bengzon Print

1/2

G.R. No. L-42821: Bengzon vs Secretary of Justice

Bill-Veto

Bengzon was appointed as Justice of the Peace in 1912 in Lingayen Pangasinan. Upon reaching

65 years of age in 1933 he would have to retire in accordance to law. He later sought to claim

gratuity pursuant to Act 4051 "An Act to provide for the payment of retirement gratuities to

officers and employees of the Insular Government retired from the service as a result of the

reorganization or reduction of personnel thereof, including the justices of the peace who must

relinquish office in accordance with the provisions of Act Numbered Thirty-eight hundred and

ninety-nine, and for other purposes." Sec 7 thereof specifically provides that gratuity may be

availed of by justices like Bengzon but that provision has been vetoed by the governor general.

Bengzon said the veto is beyond the power of the gov-gen hence he sought to file a petition to

have the Sec of Justice to implement the gratuity provision of the said law.

ISSUE: Whether or not Bengzon is entitled to the gratuity provision of the Retirement Gratuity

Law.

HELD: The gov-gen in vetoing the said item of the law has acted within his power; for this is also

in compliance with the Organic Act. Section 19 of the former Organic Act, the Act of Congress ofAugust 29, 1916, established the practice for the enactment of a law, including the sanctioning

of the veto power by the Governor-General. Specifically it provided: "The Governor-General shall

have the power to veto any particular item or items of an appropriation bill, but the veto shall not

affect the item or items to which he does not object." The SC then is constrained to rule against

Bengzon and to hold that the veto by the Governor-General of section 7 of Act No. 4051 was in

conformity with the legislative purpose and the provisions of the Organic Act.

G.R. No. L-42821: Bengzon vs Secretary of JusticeBill-Veto

Bengzon was appointed as Justice of the Peace in 1912 in Lingayen Pangasinan. Upon reaching

65 years of age in 1933 he would have to retire in accordance to law. He later sought to claim

gratuity pursuant to Act 4051 "An Act to provide for the payment of retirement gratuities to

officers and employees of the Insular Government retired from the service as a result of the

reorganization or reduction of personnel thereof, including the justices of the peace who must

relinquish office in accordance with the provisions of Act Numbered Thirty-eight hundred and

ninety-nine, and for other purposes." Sec 7 thereof specifically provides that gratuity may be

availed of by justices like Bengzon but that provision has been vetoed by the governor general.

Bengzon said the veto is beyond the power of the gov-gen hence he sought to file a petition to

have the Sec of Justice to implement the gratuity provision of the said law.

ISSUE: Whether or not Bengzon is entitled to the gratuity provision of the Retirement Gratuity

Law.

HELD: The gov-gen in vetoing the said item of the law has acted within his power; for this is also

in compliance with the Organic Act. Section 19 of the former Organic Act, the Act of Congress of

August 29, 1916, established the practice for the enactment of a law, including the sanctioning

8/8/2019 Bengzon Print

2/2

of the veto power by the Governor-General. Specifically it provided: "The Governor-General shall

have the power to veto any particular item or items of an appropriation bill, but the veto shall not

affect the item or items to which he does not object." The SC then is constrained to rule against

Bengzon and to hold that the veto by the Governor-General of section 7 of Act No. 4051 was in

conformity with the legislative purpose and the provisions of the Organic Act.