Opinion to the Governor

• Decision Date: 01 July 1970
• Docket Number: No. 39823,39823
• Citation: 239 So.2d 1
• Parties: In re Advisory OPINION TO THE GOVERNOR.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 1

239 So.2d 1

In re Advisory OPINION TO THE GOVERNOR.

No. 39823.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 1, 1970.

PER CURIAM:

Honorable Claude R. Kirk,

Governor of Florida

The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida.

Dear Governor:--

We have the honor to acknowledge your communication of June 15th, 1970, requesting our advice pursuant to Section 1(c), Article IV, Constitution of Florida, relating to certain executive powers and duties.

Omitting the formal parts, your letter reads as follows:--

'According to the provisions of Section 1(c), Article IV, Constitution of Florida, the Governor is authorized to request the opinion of the Justices of the Supreme Court, as to the interpretation 'Under Section 1(a), Article IV, the Governor is mandated to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Under Section 4(e), it is the duty of a Governor to countersign all warrants disbursing state funds. In specific regard to taxation, appropriations and state expenses, Section 1(d), Article VII, Constitution of Florida, provides, 'Provisions shall be made by law for raising sufficient revenue to defray the expenses of the State for each fiscal period.'

of any portion of the Constitution upon any question affecting the Governor's executive powers and duties.

'Under the provisions of Section 31 of Chapter 69--106, Laws of Florida, referred to as the Governmental Reorganization Act, and now found in Section 216.211(1).

"It shall be the duty of Governor, as Chief Budget Officer, to insure that revenues collected will be sufficient to meet the appropriations and that no deficit shall occur in any State Fund. If in the opinion of the Governor, a deficit will occur, he shall so certify to the Commission, and the Commission may, by affirmative action, reduce all State agency operating budgets and releases a sufficient amount to prevent a deficit in any fund.'

'Therefore, in order to properly and effectively discharge my constitutional and statutory duties and responsibilities, it will be necessary to call upon this Honorable Court for the proper construction to be placed upon House Bill 5210. Moreover, it is in furtherance of these executive powers and duties that I feel compelled to request the opinion of this Honorable Court as to whether I can properly discharge these executive powers and duties in accordance with the constitutional mandate. The facts giving rise to my inquiry and the doubt which I have regarding the exercise of these powers and duties are hereinafter set forth.

During the Regular Session commencing April 7, 1970, the Legislature enacted House Bill 5210 and entitled:

"An Act making appropriations; providing moneys for the annual period beginning July 1, 1970, and ending June 30, 1971, to pay salaries, other expenses, capital outlay--buildings and improvements, and for other specified purposes of the various agencies of state government; providing an effective date.'

'On Friday, June 5, the Legislature adjourned sine die, and on Monday, June 8, House Bill 5210 was presented to the Governor for action. On Tuesday, June 9, 1970, I vetoed House Bill 5210, together with House Bill 4358, the latter bill relating to a formula for the distribution of minimum foundation program funds. A copy of my veto messages are attached for this Court's review. As the Court will observe, I expressed a great concern about the constitutionality of the General Appropriation Act, insofar as it contained provisions on subjects other than appropriations for salaries for public officers and other current expenses of the State. Section 12, Article III. Constitution of Florida, provides as follows:

"Laws making appropriations for salaries of public officers and other current expenses of the state shall contain provisions on no other subject.'

'In addition, Section 6, Article III, supra, provides, in part, as follows:

"Every law shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith, and the subject shall be briefly expressed in the title. No law shall be revised or amended by reference to its title only. Laws to revise or amend shall set out in full the revised or amended act, section, subsection 'It is my understanding that the history behind Section 12 and 6 have been discussed in many court decisions in this and other states. I am advised that the purpose behind the people adopting Section 6 was to require that the titles of acts be sufficiently informative so as to obviate surprise or fraud that would spring from hidden provisions not indicated in the title. (See note 24 in Section 6, Article III, supra, Volume 25A, Florida Statutes Annotated) The purpose behind the people adopting Section 12, supra, formerly appearing as Section 30, Article III, Constitution of 1885, is set forth in this Court's decision in Lee v. Dowda, 19 So.2d 570, at page 571 as follows:

or paragraph of a subsection * * *'

"It is manifest that the Constitution considered this matter of appropriation Laws so important that it required they should be freed from all log rolling, by putting into such bills riders dealing with any other subject whatsoever, so that the attention of the Legislature should be concentrated upon the wisdom of and the necessity for the several items of appropriations made by and enumerated in the bill, and so also that the public could rest assured that when an appropriation bill was up for consideration in the Legislature nothing would be considered but the appropriations, and that this important matter should not be prejudiced by the injection into the appropriation bill of any other matters, regardless of their inherent mertis or demerits.'

(See also Amos v. Moseley, 74 Fla. 555, 777, 619, (1918); State v. Lee, 121 Fla. 316, 163 So. 859, (1935); Green v. Rawls, 122 So.2d 10 (1960))

'When reviewing House Bill 5210, in light of Section 6 and 12, supra, and in light of the decisions, of this Court, it would appear to me that House Bill 5210 is unconstitutional, such unconstitutionality arising from the fact that the title does not sufficiently express and embrace the matters contained in the body of the bill; the bill embracing more than one subject not properly connected therewith; and the bill, being an apprpriations bill, containing provisions on subjects other than salaries and current expenses of the State.

'A listing of these provisions is attached to this request. Specific examples are hereinafter discussed. On pages 17 and 17a, item 188 appears, and is set forth in part as follows:

"Grants and Aids

From General Revenue Fund

Minimum Foundation

                  Program K--12             $575,096,786
                County School Sales Tax       33,476,120
                County Capital Outlay
                  and Debt Service
                  Recalculation                  651,696
                Educational Research &amp
                  Development Program          1,200,000
                State Textbook Program
                  Purchase of Textbooks        8,211,281
                Exceptional Child Summer
                  Institutes                      40,000
                Driver Education (a)           4,200,000
                Educational Leadership
                  Training Act                    50,000
                General Scholarships             930,000
                Nursing Scholarships             176,000
                Seminole Indian
                  Scholarships                     4,800
                Children of Deceased
                  Veterans                        11,000
                Exceptional Child
                  Scholarships                   213,750
                Board of Regents
                  Scholarships                 1,520,000
                Extended School Year Pilot
                  Programs                       400,299
                Gifted Education Program         260,000
                

"(a)Provided, however, $2,100,000 of this appropriation is contingent upon Senate Bill 1554 or similar legislation becoming law.

From Trust Funds

                County Capital Outlay and
                  Debt Service Trust Fund    25,747,714
                Interest State School Trust
                  Fund--MFP K-12              1,000,000
                Educational Aid Trust
                  Fund--Aid to Counties      40,083,055
                National School Lunch
                  Trust Fund                 12,138,218
                Student Financial Aid
                  Trust Fund--Loans             900,000
                Grants and Donations
                  Trust Fund                      5,000
                Ex-Confederate Soldiers
                  and Sailors Endowment
                  Trust Fund--Scholarships        4,000
                Teachers of Mentally
                  Retarded--Scholarships         94,000
                

"None of the appropriations in item 188 shall become effective unless CS for HB 4358 or substantially equivalent legislation becomes law. 'This Court's attention is directed to the underlined phrase, 'None of the appropriations in item 188 shall become effective unless CS for HB 4358 or substantially equivalent legislation becomes law.' In order for the Governor to be able to veto this language, he must also veto the Entire item 188, inasmuch as under Section 8, Article III, the Governor may not veto 'any qualification or restriction without also vetoing the appropriation to which it relates'. The appropriation to which the quoted language hereinabove relates is the entire item 188. Therefore, the Governor would have to veto all of item 188 in order to remove this objectionable language; unless, however, the foregoing quoted language Is not a 'qualification or restriction,' but is in fact and law, a provision on another subject as prohibited by Section 12, supra, in which case such language would not be subject to veto, but would fall based upon the fact that it violates Section 12, as discussed in the aforementioned decisions by this Court; and also based upon the fact that the subject matter embraced within House Bill 4358 is nowhere mentioned in the title to House Bill 5210, nor is it in any way connected with the appropriations bill except by indirect reference in item 188.

'It might also be observed that the purported 'qualifications and restrictions' upon item 188 is not merely limited to the foregoing quoted language, but must also include the provisions of House Bill 4358. If this language and House Bill 4358 were in fact and law a valid 'qualification or restriction' upon item 188, then it should have been included in the General Appropriations bill; the fact that House Bill 4358 was enacted as a separate piece of legislation...