Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Guingona, Jr. vs. Carague

    Uploaded by

    John Bas
    28 views1 page
    This case discusses an issue regarding the 1990 budget and whether there was undue delegation of legislative power to the President regarding debt service appropriations. The petitioners argued there must be definiteness, certainty and exactness in appropriations. However, the Court ruled that no undue delegation occurred. The questioned laws provided complete terms and sufficient standards. The legislative intent of the laws was to automatically set aside funds needed to pay principal, interest and other charges on loans and debts to maintain the country's credit standing. While specific amounts weren't stated, the Executive's discretion was not unlimited, as amounts were certain based on parameters in the laws. The mandate was only to pay amounts actually due, as shown in Treasury books.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    120. Guingona, Jr. vs. Carague.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case discusses an issue regarding the 1990 budget and whether there was undue delegation of legislative power to the President regarding debt service appropriations. The petitioners argued there must be definiteness, certainty and exactness in appropriations. However, the Court ruled that no undue delegation occurred. The questioned laws provided complete terms and sufficient standards. The legislative intent of the laws was to automatically set aside funds needed to pay principal, interest and other charges on loans and debts to maintain the country's credit standing. While specific amounts weren't stated, the Executive's discretion was not unlimited, as amounts were certain based on parameters in the laws. The mandate was only to pay amounts actually due, as shown in Treasury books.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    28 views1 page

    Guingona, Jr. vs. Carague

    Uploaded by

    John Bas
    This case discusses an issue regarding the 1990 budget and whether there was undue delegation of legislative power to the President regarding debt service appropriations. The petitioners argued there must be definiteness, certainty and exactness in appropriations. However, the Court ruled that no undue delegation occurred. The questioned laws provided complete terms and sufficient standards. The legislative intent of the laws was to automatically set aside funds needed to pay principal, interest and other charges on loans and debts to maintain the country's credit standing. While specific amounts weren't stated, the Executive's discretion was not unlimited, as amounts were certain based on parameters in the laws. The mandate was only to pay amounts actually due, as shown in Treasury books.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    120. Guingona, Jr. vs.

    Carague

    Facts:

    The 1990 budget consists of P98.4 Billion in automatic appropriation (with P86.8 Billion for debt
    service) and P155.3 Billion appropriated under Republic Act No. 6831, otherwise known as the General
    Appropriations Act, or a total of P233.5 Billion,1 while the appropriations for the Department of Education,
    Culture and Sports amount to P27,017,813,000.00.2

    The said automatic appropriation for debt service is authorized by P.D. No. 81, entitled "Amending
    Certain Provisions of Republic Act Numbered Four Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty, as Amended (Re: Foreign
    Borrowing Act)," by P.D. No. 1177, entitled "Revising the Budget Process in Order to Institutionalize the
    Budgetary Innovations of the New Society," and by P.D. No. 1967, entitled "An Act Strenghthening the
    Guarantee and Payment Positions of the Republic of the Philippines on Its Contingent Liabilities Arising out of
    Relent and Guaranteed Loan by Appropriating Funds For The Purpose.

    They assert that there must be definiteness, certainty and exactness in an appropriation, 11 otherwise it
    is an undue delegation of legislative power to the President who determines in advance the amount
    appropriated for the debt service

    Issue: Whether or not there is an undue delegation of legislative power

    Ruling:

    No. The Court finds that in this case the questioned laws are complete in all their essential terms and
    conditions and sufficient standards are indicated therein. The legislative intention in R.A. No. 4860, as
    amended, Section 31 of P.D. No. 1177 and P.D. No. 1967 is that the amount needed should be automatically
    set aside in order to enable the Republic of the Philippines to pay the principal, interest, taxes and other
    normal banking charges on the loans, credits or indebtedness incurred as guaranteed by it when they shall
    become due without the need to enact a separate law appropriating funds therefor as the need arises. The
    purpose of these laws 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. Although the subject presidential 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 for debt servicing. The mandate is to pay only the
    principal, interest, taxes and other normal banking charges on the loans, credits or indebtedness, or on the
    bonds, debentures or security or other evidences of indebtedness sold in international markets incurred by
    virtue of the law, as and when they shall become due. No uncertainty arises in executive implementation as
    the limit will be the exact amounts as shown by the books of the Treasury.,

    You might also like