Title: In Re Opinion to the Governor

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

239 So. 2d 1 (1970)
In re Advisory OPINION TO THE GOVERNOR.
No. 39823.

Supreme Court of Florida.
July 1, 1970.
*2 PER CURIAM:
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: 
The import of your request is to have this Court pass upon the constitutionality vel non of the 1970 General Appropriations Bill referred to in your letter as House Bill 5210, recently identified as Chapter 70-95, Laws of Florida 1970. You also referred to Committee Substitute to House Bill 4358, now known as Chapter 70-90, Laws of Florida 1970, and to Senate Bill 1554 which apparently was not enacted into law.
This Court was not always in agreement under the Constitution of 1885 as to whether or not such a question could be answered. Compare Advisory Opinion to Governor Dan McCarty, 63 So. 2d 321, and Advisory Opinion to Governor Collins, 113 So. 2d 703. However, it is noteworthy that in the 1968 constitutional revision, authority and direction were given this Court to permit interested persons to be heard, subject to the Rules of the Court which was followed by the implementation of our Rule F.A.R. 2.1(h) providing for such participation. Pursuant to such authority interested persons, including members of the Legislature, have presented both sides of this controversy by the filing of briefs. Because of the foregoing, *9 and in view of the great public interest in maintaining the fiscal stability of state government, we have decided to answer your request.
At the outset, our attention is directed to provisions of the Constitution that:
In your executive communication you point out a large number of matters which you feel raise questions as to the constitutional validity of House Bill 5210 (Chapter 70-95) as a whole.
Provisions in a General Appropriations Bill on any subject other than "appropriations for salaries of public officers and other current expenses of the State" and matters reasonably related thereto are invalid and are not law. See Sec. 1(c), Article VII, supra.
The Legislature may not validly so draft a general appropriations bill as to unduly and unreasonably preclude the exercise of the executive power to "veto any specific appropriation in a general appropriation bill". In the early history of the State, it was customary for such bills to fix in minute detail each authorized expenditure. In later years appropriations to state offices and for state activities have been in larger sums and have been more flexible as to how these funds may be expended. While the Court should be slow to restrict the legislative judgment in making appropriations, they should not permit the circumventing by the Legislature of the proper powers of the Governor, including his power of veto.
Our examination of House Bill 5210, in the light of your comments, does not reveal that the Legislature has, in this instance, exceeded its constitutional powers in this regard. There are, in this bill, over nine hundred "items". Many of these items embrace numerous "specific appropriations". For example "Item 188", which will be discussed in more detail later, has twenty-five "specific appropriations". Any of these could have been reached by individual veto. See Sec. 8, Article III, supra.
Appropriations may constitutionally be made contingent upon matters or events reasonably related to the subject of the appropriation, but may not be made to depend upon entirely unrelated events. For example, an appropriation to a university might be contingent upon the registration of a minimum number of students who could benefit from the appropriation or contingent upon the state revenues reaching a certain level. There is no constitutional impediment to an appropriation being made contingent upon another bill, reasonably related to the appropriation and where there is a direct and relative interdependence between them, becoming law.
You make specifc reference to "Item 188" of House Bill 5210. Under this "item" twenty-five specific dollar-amounts are listed. As respects one of these sums, it is "Provided, however, $2,100,000 of this appropriation is contingent upon Senate Bill 1554 or similar legislation becoming law." As regards the entire "Item 188", it is provided "None of the apppropriations in Item 188 shall become effective unless Committee Substitute for House Bill 4358 or substantially equivalent legislation becomes law." We are advised and take judicial notice that Committee Substitute for House Bill 4358, now known as Chapter 70-94, Laws of Florida, has now become law, thus meeting the contingency and any question because of such contingency has therefore become moot.
*10 The proviso involving Senate Bill 1554 above quoted appears in the following context 
While it contained no appropriation, Senate Bill 1554  which did not pass  would have increased the tax on driver's licenses "for the purpose of financing the driver education program in the secondary schools". The specific appropriation which was made contingent upon the enactment of Senate Bill 1554 related to driver education in the amount of $4,200,000. This is the type of qualification authorized by Sec. 8(a) of Article III of the Constitution of Florida, and since Senate Bill 1554 did not become law the appropriation for driver education aforementioned must stand reduced from $4,200,000 to $2,100,000.
Committee Substitute for House Bill 4358 amends several sections of the law relating to the overall educational program and particularly the minimum foundation provisions. Item 188 appropriates more than half a billion dollars, much of which is needed to meet the funds to be spent pursuant to Committee Substitute for House Bill 4358. If Committee Substitute for House Bill 4358 had not become law much of the appropriation in Item 188 would not have been expendable. While it might have been wiser for the Legislature to have appropriated funds sufficient to meet the school needs without Committee Substitute for House Bill 4358 and then make a contingent appropriation of additional funds to meet the increased needs resulting from Committee Substitute for House Bill 4358, if enacted, it is clear that the relationship between Committee Substitute for House Bill 4358 and later Item 188 is so close that the proviso under scrutiny is within the legislative prerogative.
You point out that Item 172 of House Bill 5210 is "in lieu of Sections 236.071(1), 236.071, 236.075 and 231.53, F.S." We find no constitutional impediment to a General Appropriations Bill making allocations of State funds for a previously authorized purpose in amounts different from those previously allocated or substituting adequate specific appropriations for prior continuing appropriations. Whether an appropriations bill can, by appropriating a lesser amount, reduce a continuing appropriation provided in preexisting law is a question neither properly presented nor decided here.
Section 8 of House Bill 5210 is in part as follows 
You suggest that this provision is invalid. Since the factual situation which is a condition precedent to any action under this provision may never occur, any present inquiry as to its validity is premature. To the extent that this provision in House Bill 5210 may affect the validity of the entire bill, it is our opinion that it does not. If held invalid in an adversary proceeding by a court of competent jurisdiction it is readily severable from the rest of the statute.
You call attention to several provisions of House Bill 5210 relating to the expenditure of various items of money appropriated. The Constitution expressly recognizes the power of the Legislature to make appropriations subject to qualifications and restrictions. See Sec. 8 of Article III. Such qualifications and restrictions may not go to the extent of changing other substantive law, but they may limit or qualify the use to which the moneys appropriated may be put and may specify reasonable conditions precedent to their *11 use, even though this may leave some governmental activities underfinanced in the opinion of officers of other departments of government.
It would be inappropriate for us, at this time, to undertake to analyze all the provisions of House Bill 5210 and discuss in detail all qualifications and restrictions upon appropriations found in this law. Much of your communication consists of pointing out dangers which you fear may arise from future efforts on the part of the Legislature to unduly restrict the Chief Executive in the exercise of the power of veto and in so drafting appropriation bills as to make them instruments of "logrolling" contrary to the intent of Secs. 6, 8 and 12, Article III. We have carefully considered these observations and, while they may well be of academic interest, we do not find such comments to require a judicial interpretation at this time.
We now turn to your specific question as distinguished from your general discussion of House Bill 5210: 
We do not find anything in your communication that would vitiate the 1970 General Appropriations Act and, while there may be some items which would have appropriately been a subject of your line item veto, we do not find any impediment created by your executive communication that would prevent your disbursing funds in accordance with the said Appropriations Bill, and except, unless and until some particular item is voided by a court of competent jurisdiction, you would be authorized to countersign warrants based thereon and presented to you in due course.
The other matters and things about which you have inquired are answered to the extent of our authority to do so in the body of this communication.
In summary, we advise you that:
(1) In our opinion, the 1970 General Appropriations Act, against a general attack, is valid and within the orbit of legislative power and against such a general attack a court of competent jurisdiction should and would hold it to be so.
(2) That the Legislature does not have the power nor the right under the Constitution of this State to make law in an appropriations bill on other subjects, unless the other subjects are so relevant to, interwoven with, and interdependent upon, the appropriations so as to jointly constitute a complete legislative expression on the subject.
My dear Sir:
An answer to your request for an advisory opinion concerning the Appropriations Act of 1970, in its last analysis, would require me to say whether the whole act was constitutionally valid or invalid. Whatever may be my individual views on the encompassing question of constitutionality, eleven years ago a majority of this Court in In Re: Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 113 So. 2d 703, declined to answer a request for an advisory opinion from the then Governor Collins for the reason that this Court was without authority to render an advisory opinion to the Governor determining the constitutional validity vel non of an act of the Legislature. At that time in a separate opinion to Governor Collins, I stated (113 So.2d 706):
The critical language of the Constitution of 1968 under which your request is presented is identical to the language of the Constitution of 1885 under which the request of Governor Collins was made. The provisions of the 1968 Constitution relating to procedure for obtaining advisory opinions does not  in my judgment  in any way enlarge the powers of this Court with respect to this basic constitutional question.
Looking back over more than a decade I can only conclude that the passage of time has confirmed the wisdom of this Court expressed by the majority in the advisory opinion above referred to, and my own views quoted above.
Consistency compels me therefore to respectfully decline to render any opinion upon the questions propounded.
EHD:gr