G.R. No. L-10405
December 29, 1960
Facts
Petitioner, Wenceslao Pascual, as Provincial Governor of Rizal, filed an action for declaratory relief with injuction, against Republic Act No. 920 , “An Act Appropriating Funds for Public Works”, specifically the item of P85,000 for the construction, reconstruction, repair, extension and improvement of Pasig Feeder Road Terminals. The said feeder roads were within the privately owned subdivision owned by respondent Jose Zulueta, a member of the Senate of the Philippines. Respondent offered to donate the said feeder roads to Municipality of Pasig and was executed more or less 5 months after the effectivity date of the said Act. Petitioner contends, among others, that the contested item of Republic Act No. 920 be declared null and void and that the alleged deed of donation of the feeder roads in question be “declared unconstitutional and, therefore, illegal.”
Respondents moved to dismiss the petition upon the ground that petitioner has no legal capacity to sue and petition did not state a cause of action. Respondents claimed that it is not the Provincial Governor but the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal who should represent the Province of Rizal pursuant to the Revised Administrative Code. Moreover, respondent contends that the constitutional provision invoked by the petitioner is not applicable to donations being an act of liberality. The lower court dismissed the case stating that the legality of the donation may not be contested by petitioner because his “interests are not directly affected.”
Issue
Whether or not the construction of the feeder roads is for public purpose which guarantees the exercise of the power of taxation?
Held
No. The general rule is that the Legislature has the power to appropriate public funds only for public purpose. In other words, taxing power must be exercised for public purposes only, that is the money raised by taxation can be expanded only for public purposes and not for the advantage of private individuals. Incidental advantage to the public or to the state, which results from the promotion of private interests and the prosperity of private enterprises or business, does not justify their aid by the use of public money.
With that, the test of the constitutionality of a statute requiring the use of public funds is whether the statute is designed to promote the public interests, as opposed to the furtherance of the advantage of individuals, although each advantage to individuals might incidentally serve the public.
In this case, the land on which the projected feeder roads were to be constructed belonged then to respondent Zulueta, the result is that said appropriation sought a private purpose, and, hence, was null and void.
Therefore, the questioned provision is not a valid exercise of the power of taxation.