Guingona v. Carague

Petitioners: Teofisto T. Guingona and Aqulino Q. Pimentel

Respondents: Hon. Guillermo Carague, as Secretary of Budget and Management; Hon. Rozalina S. Cajucom as National Treasurer; and Commission on Audit

Requirements as to Certain Laws – Appropriation Laws

SUMMARY: (1-2 sentence summary of facts, issue, ratio and ruling)

FACTS:

Petitioners question the constitutionality of the automatic appropriation for debt service in the 1990 budget

o 1990 budget consists of P98.4 billion in automatic appropriation (with P86.8 billion for debt service) and P155.3 billion appropriated under RA 6831 or the General Appropriations Act

o The appropriations for the Department of Education, Culture, and Sports amount to 27,017,813,000.00 (27 billion)

Petitioners seek the declaration of the unconstitutionality of P.D. 81, Section 31 of P.D. 1177, and P.D. 1967 and to restrain the disbursement for debt service under the 1990 budget pursuant to said decrees

Petitioners have standing as senators of the PH because a constitutional issue is raisedo Even a taxpayer has standing to restrain unlawful expenditure of public funds

Respondents maintain that the petition involves a political question which is the repeal or amendment of said laws addressed to the judgment, wisdom, and patriotism of the legislative body, not the court

Petitioners contend that according to Sec. 5, Art. XIV of the Constitution: “The State shall assign the highest budgetary priority to education and ensure 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.”

o Against constitutional intention, only P27 billion is appropriated for the Department of Education while P86 billion is appropriated for debt service

ISSUE/S:

WoN the appropriation of P86 billion in the P233 billion of the 1990 budget violates sec 5, art XIV of the constitution

o NO. The hands of Congress are so hamstrung to deprive it of the power to respond to the imperatives of the national interest and for the attainment of other state policies or objectives

o Respondents: since 1985, the budget for education has tripled to upgrade and improve the public school system and teachers’ compensation has doubled

The 29 billion set aside for the Department of Education, Culture, and Sports is the highest budgetary allocation among all department budgets

This shows a clear compliance with constitutional mandate giving the utmost priority to education

o Since the Congress complied with the constitution, it is not without power to provide an appropriation that can service the country’s enormous debt to protect the credit standing of the country

o Since the survival of the country is at stake, if the congress appropriated an amount for debt service bigger than the share allocated to education, the court cannot hold this as unconstitutional

WoN PD 81, PD 1177, and PD 1967 remain operative under the 1987 constitution - YESo Petitioners: automatic appropriation under aforesaid decrees of President Marcos

became functus oficio when he was ousted in February 1986. Even if they were not repealed, said laws are inoperative under sec 3,

art 18 the constitution for being inconsistent with sec 24, art 6 of the constitution which states that-- All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments

The PDs originated from the president and not from the HOR -- INCONSISTENT

o Court: sec 3, art 18 is a transitory provision of the constitution to preserve social order and so that legislation made by President Marcos during his term may be recognized, thus the laws mentioned constitute lawful authorization of appropriations unless they are repealed or amended

The automatic appropriation provides flexibility for the effective execution of debt management policies – so that funds can be made available when they are due without the necessity of period enactments of separate laws appropriating funds

In sec 24 and sec 27, art 6 of the constitution which requires that “all appropriations,… bills authorizing increase of public debt” must be passed by congress and approved by the president does not hold

The framers of the 1987 constitution did not contemplate that existing laws, including existing presidential decrees appropriating public money are reduced to mere “bills” that must go through the legislative process again

The only reasonable interpretation of sec 24 and 27 of the constitution which refer to “bills” is that they mean appropriation measures still to be passed by congress

WoN there is undue delegation of legislative power to let executive determine the amount appropriated for debt service- NO

o If the laws have gaps that prevent enforcement and the enforcer is given an opportunity to step in the shoes of the legislature and exercise a discretion essentially legislative, then it is invalid delegation

o The questioned laws are complete in all their essential terms and conditions and sufficient standards are indicated therein

o

NOTES:

Optional Notes on the topic/provision that may be relevant to the understanding of the issue/case.