Guingona, Jr.

v Carague (1991)
Facts
Senators Teofisto Guingona, Jr. and Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr.
(petitioners) question the constitutionality of the automatic
appropriation for debt service in the 1990 budget, which is the
responsibility of Hon. Guillermo Carague, Secretary of Budget and
Management, Hon. Rozalina S. Cajucom, Natl Treasurer, and the
Commission on Audit (respondents)
Said budget consists of P98.4 Billion in automatic appropriation, P86.6
B of which is for debt service, and P155.3 B appropriated under the
General Appropriations Act (RA No. 6831), which amounts to P233.5
B (digestors note: I dont understand the math), while the
appropriations for DECS amount only to P27,017,813,000.00
The automatic appropriation for debt service is authorized by PD No.

81 Amending Certain Provisions of Republic Act Numbered 4860,

as amended (Re: Foreign Borrowing Act), by PD No. 1177 Revising
the Budget Process in Order to Institutionalize the Budgetary
Innovations of the New Society, and by PD No. 1967 An Act
Strengthening the Guarantee and Payment Positions of the Republic
of the Philippines on Its Contingent Liabilities Arising out of Relent and
Guaranteed Loans by Appropriating Funds for the Purpose, which
came into effect under Pres. Marcos.
Petitioners seek the declaration of the unconstitutionality of PD No
81, Section 31 of PD No 1177, and PD No 1967, and to restrain
the disbursement for debt service under the 1990 budget pursuant to
said decrees.

Issues
1. WON the case is a political question
2. WON the appropriation of P86 B in the P233 B 1990 Budget
violates Sec. 5, Art. XIV of the 1987 Constitution
3. WON PD No. 81, No. 1177, and No. 1967 still operate under the 1987
Constitution
4. WON the above PDs violate Sec 29(1), Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution
Ratio & Holding (Held?)
1. No, it is not.
Because the petitioners are questioning the constitutionality of
certain PDs, there is a justiciable controversy that may be
recognized by the Court.
2. No, it does not.
Sec. 5, Art. XIV of the Constitution states that the state shall assign
the highest budgetary priority to education in order to, among
other

things, keep Filipino schoolteachers in the country, and the petitioners

point out that the above budget shows that education was not given
highest priority. The Court, however, stated that this does not mean
that Congress cannot respond to the imperatives of natl interest
and for the attainment of other state policies or objectives, while the
respondents stated that the budget for education has, in fact, been
raised since 1985, and has the highest allocation among all other
departments.
3. Yes, they still do.
Petitioners arguments: PD 81, which amended Sec. 6 of RA
4860, PD 1177, and PD 1967, which were all issued by Pres.
Marcos, provided for automatic appropriations and indefinite
amounts, and that these should all have been functus officio when
he was ousted in February 1986, with the legislative power being
restored to congress in Feb. 2, 1987, upon the ratification of the
Constitution. Even assuming that these PDs did not expire with
Marcos presidency, petitioners argue that the said PDs are
inoperative under Sec. 3, Art. XVIII; and that said PDs are
inconsistent with Sec. 24, Art. VI, whereby bills have to be
approved by the president, meaning that congress must pass a
law to authorize the automatic appropriation.
SC: Sec. 3, Art. XVIII was made in such a way that it recognizes
Marcos legislation to preserve social order, while the Sol Gen
argues that the law was made to continue even without Marcos
in power. With regards to the inconsistency with Secs. 24 & 27, Art.
VI, the Court said that the word bills refers to appropriation
measures still to be passed by the Congress, and not existing
PDs. Also, repeal or amendment by implication is frowned upon.
4. No, it does not.
Petitioners: The PDs violate Sec. 29(1), Art. VI, which asserts
that there must be definiteness, certainty, and exactness in
appropriation.
SC and Respondents: RA No. 4869, Sec. 31 of PD No. 1177, and PD
No. 1967s legislative intention was that the amounts needed
should be automatically set aside in order to enable the RP
to
immediately pay debts and banking charges when they are
due, without the need for the enactment of a law to appropriate
funds therefor. There will be no uncertainty because the exact
amounts needed will be shown by the books of the Treasury. Also,
the Government budgetary process addresses the undue
delegation of legislative power, and our Constitution does not
require a definite, certain, exact or specific appropriation made by
law, because Sec. 29, Art. VI omits any of the aforementioned
words.

Therefore, RA 4860, as amended by PD 81, Sec. 31 of PD 1177, and PD

1967 constitute lawful authorizations or appropriations, unless they are
repealed or otherwise amended by Congress. Petition dismissed.
Dissent/s:
Cruz, J.: Valid appropriation must have a certain amount appropriated,
i.e., the sum authorized to be released must be determinate or
determinable. Sec. 7 of PD 81, Sec. 31 of PD 1717 (1177?), and Sec. 1 of
PD 1967 do not fix any amounts, either by exact figure or its maximum.
Padilla, J.: Sec. 29 (1), Art. VI provides that there must first be a law
enacted by Congress (and approved by the President) appropriating a sum
or sums before payment from the Treasury may be made. It must be
Congress for the said section to be meaningful.
This Digest was brought to you by: Rayos del Sol, Angelo S.