Guingona vs. Carague PETITIONERS: Teofisto Guingona, Jr. and Aquilino Pimentel, Jr.

, members of the Senate RESPONDENTS: Guillermo Carague, Secretary of Dept. of Budget and Management; Rozalina Cajucom, National Treasurer; and Commission on Audit FACTS: The 1990 budget totals P233.5B It consists of 1. P155.3B appropriated by Congress under RA6831 (General Appropriations Act of 1990 or GAA 1990), of which 27B will go to DECS, the highest among all departments; and 2.P98.4B in automatic appropriations (P86B for debt servicing) pursuant to: a. PD81 (which amends RA4860, Foreign Borrowing Act), b.PD1177 (entitled Revising the Budget Process in Order to Institutionalize the Budgetary Innovations of the New Society), and c.PD1967 (An Act Strengthening the Guarantee and Payment Positions of the Rep. of the Phil. On Its Contingent Liabilities Arising out of Relent and Guaranteed Loans by Appropriating Funds for the Purpose) Petitioners, are seeking: 1. the declaration of the unconstitutionality of Presidential Decree Nos. 81, 1177 (Section 31) and 1967; and 2. the restraining of the disbursement for the debt service under the 1990 budget under said decrees (i.e. the P86B automatic appropriations). They are basing their petition on 3 grounds: 1.By appropriating more funds for debt servicing (P86B) than for education (P27B), such appropriations are violative of Section 5, Article 14 of the Constitution. 2. PDs 81, 1177 and 1967 are no longer operative under the present Constitution (1987) 3.Such PDs violate Section 29(1), Article 6 of the Constitution, which states that no money shall be paid out of the National Treasury except in pursuance to an appropriation made by law. P ROCEDURAL I SSUES: 1.Locus Standi as Senators, they may raise the issue of unconstitutionality as taxpayers, they have personal interest in restraining unlawful expenditure of public funds 2.Justiciability in Gonzales vs. Macaraig, Jr., which involves the constitutionality of the presidential veto of certain provisions of GAA 1990, the Court held that the

political doctrine interposes no obstacle to the judicial determination of rival claims under the Constitution. With the Senate maintaining that the Presidents veto is unconstitutional, and that the charge being controverted, there is an actual case or justiciable controversy between the Upper House of Congress and the Executive that may be taken cognizance of by the SC ISSUES: I. W/N the P86B debt servicing appropriation is violative of Section 5, Article 14 of the Constitution and, therefore, invalid. NO. The fact the DECS appropriation is the highest budgetary appropriation among all department budgets is a clear and sufficient compliance with the constitutional mandate according highest priority to education. The Constitution mandates the assignment of highest budgetary priority to education in order to insure that teaching will attract and retain its rightful share of the best available talents through adequate remuneration and other means of job satisfaction and fulfillment However, this does not mean that Congress is so hamstrung that it is deprived of the power to respond to the imperatives of national interest and for the attainment of other state policies or objectives. Congress is certainly not without any power, guided only by its good judgment, to provide an appropriation that can reasonably service our enormous debt It is a matter of: 1. honor 2. protecting our credit standing 3. the very survival of our economy II. W/N PD81, PD1177 and PD1967 are still operative under the Constitution. YES. Section 3, Article 18 of the Constitution recognizes that all existing decrees not inconsistent with the Constitution shall remain operative under amended, repealed or revoked. Implied repeal and revocation is frowned upon. PD 81 amends RA 4860, which authorizes the president to obtain foreign loans and credits and appropriates the necessary funds therefore, by providing that funds are hereby appropriated from the National Treasury to cover any deficiency for debt servicing PD1177 provides for the automatic appropriations for expenditures for, inter alia, principal and interests on public debt PD1967 provides that there is hereby appropriated, out of any funds in the National Treasury, such amounts as may be necessary to effect payments on foreign or domestic loans Their purpose is to enable the government to make prompt payment and/or advances for all loans to protect and maintain the credit standing of the country

Petitioners allege that said decrees became functus officio when Pres. Marcos was ousted because, with the expiration of the one-man legislature, the legislative power was restored to Congress and that new legislation for automatic appropriations must come from Congress. The SC held that it could not have been the intention of the framers of the Constitution to require all existing laws to pass through Congress again The requirement of Sections 24 and 27, which requires appropriations and bills to originate from the House of Representatives and be approved by the President, applies only to bills that are still to be passed by Congress This is all the more true because of the political wisdom of automatic appropriations, which is to provide flexibility to the government for effective execution of debt management policies. III. W/N they are unconstitutional by violating Sections 24 and 29(1), Article 6 of the Constitution or W/N under the said PDs there is undue delegation of legislative power NO. If the delegation of the authority to execute the legislative intent satisfies the test of completeness, then there is a valid delegation. The legislature does not abdicate its function when it describes what job must be done, who is to do it, and what is the scope of his authority. In Edu vs. Ericta, the SC said that to avoid the taint of unlawful delegation, there must be a standard that implies, at the very least, that the legislature itself determines matters of principle and lays down fundamental policy the standard may be either express or implied from the policy and purpose. The SC found that, in this case, the questioned laws are complete in all their essential terms and conditions and sufficient standards are indicated therein. Although the decrees do not state specific amounts to be paid, necessitated by the very nature of the problem being addressed, the amounts nevertheless are made certain by the legislative parameters provided in the decrees The Executive is not of unlimited discretion as to the amounts to be disbursed The mandate is only to pay the principal, interest, taxes, and other normal banking charges on the loans, credits or indebtedness No uncertainty arises in executive implementation as the limit will be the exact amounts as shown by the books of the Treasury

Section 29(1), Article 6 merely states that appropriation should be made by law It does not provide or prescribe any particular form of words or religious recitals in which authorization or appropriation by Congress shall be made, except that it be done by law This is precisely what the decrees did, it made appropriations by law