a collections of case digests and laws that can help aspiring law students to become a lawyer
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to such retirement benefit
FACTS: Petitioner was re-elected to a third term (December 30, 1965 to December 30, 1969) but was held not entitled to the salary increase of P32,000.00 during such third term by virtue of this Court’s unanimous decision in Philconsa vs. Mathay. He lost his next bid and filed for retirement claim. House of Representative issued a treasury warrant using the unapproved amount. Congress Auditor did not sign the warrant. Petitioner’s request for reconsideration was denied, hence the petition.
RATIO DECIDENDI: To grant retirement gratuity to members of Congress whose terms expired on December 30, 1969 computed on the basis of an increased salary of P32,000.00 per annum (which they were prohibited by the Constitution from receiving during their term of office) would be to pay them prohibited emoluments which in effect increase the salary beyond that which they were permitted by the Constitution to receive during their incumbency.
Leave a Reply.