Download A7S20Spouses Constantino v. Cuisia PDF

TitleA7S20Spouses Constantino v. Cuisia
TagsDebt Loans United States Constitution United States Government United States Congress
File Size232.6 KB
Total Pages2
Document Text Contents
Page 1

CASE DIGEST
Spouses Constantino v. Cuisia

[G.R. No. 106064, 13 October 2005]
Tingga


FACTS

Petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus of the Philippine Comprehensive Program for 1992.Petitioners are
members of the non-government organization, Freedom from DebtCoalition,
which advocates a “pro-people and just Philippine debt policy.” They question the Financing Program started by then
President Corazon Aquino, characterized as a “multi
-option financing package”, wherein the President entered into three restructuring agreements with foreign creditor
governments. Petitioners stress that unlike other powers which may be validly delegated by the President, the power to
incur foreign debts is expressly reserved by the Constitution in the person of the President.


ISSUES ARTICLES/LAWS INVOLVED

1. WON the President can borrow to meet
publice expenditures in the form of bonds

2. WON the President can delegate the power to
incur foreign debts to other executive
agencies.




SECTION 20. The President may contract or guarantee
foreign loans on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines
with the prior concurrence of the Monetary Board, and
subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. The
Monetary Board shall, within thirty days from the end of
every quarter of the calendar year, submit to the Congress
a complete report of its decisions on applications for loans
to be contracted or guaranteed by the Government or
government-owned and controlled corporations which
would have the effect of increasing the foreign debt, and
containing other matters as may be provided by law.

HELD

1st issue: The Scope of Section 20, Article VII

Petioner: buyback and bond-conversion schemes do not constitute the loan contract or guarantee contemplated in the
Constitution

Court: The language of the Constitution is simple and clear as it is broad. It allows the President to contract and
guarantee foreign loans. It makes no prohibition on the issuance of certain kinds of loans or distinctions as to which
kinds of debt instruments are more onerous than others. This Court may not ascribe to the Constitution meanings and
restrictions that would unduly burden the powers of the President. The plain, clear and unambiguous language of the
Constitution should be construed in a sense that will allow the full exercise of the power provided therein. It would be
the worst kind of judicial legislation if the courts were to misconstrue and change the meaning of the organic act.

The only restriction that the Constitution provides, aside from the prior concurrence of the Monetary Board, is
that the loans must be subject to limitations provided by law. In this regard, we note that Republic Act (R.A.) No. 245 as
amended by Pres. Decree (P.D.) No. 142, s. 1973, entitled An Act Authorizing the Secretary of Finance to Borrow to
Meet Public Expenditures Authorized by Law, and for Other Purposes, allows foreign loans to be contracted in the
form of, inter alia, bonds. Thus:



Sec. 1. In order to meet public expenditures authorized by law or to provide for the purchase,
redemption, or refunding of any obligations, either direct or guaranteed of the Philippine Government,
the Secretary of Finance, with the approval of the President of the Philippines, after
consultation with the Monetary Board, is authorized to borrow from time to time on the
credit of the Republic of the Philippines such sum or sums as in his judgment may be
necessary, and to issue therefor evidences of indebtedness of the Philippine
Government."
Such evidences of indebtedness may be of the following types:

Similer Documents