Guingona vs.

Carague
G.R. No. 94571, 22 April 1991

FACTS:
The 1990 total national budget of P233.5 Billion consisted of P155.3 billion under
Republic Act No. 6831 or the General Appropriations Act, and P98.4 billion in automatic
appropriation, including P86.8 billion for debt service

The said automatic appropriation for debt service follows regulations/gets authority from
former President Marcos' Presidential Decrees No. 81 (Amendment to RA 4860 or The
Foreign Borrowing Act), No. 1177 (Budget Reform Decree), and No. 1967 (An Act
Strengthening the the Guarantee and Payment Positions of the PHL on its Contingent
Liabilities Arising out of...Loans by Appropriating Funds for the Purpose)

The appropriation for the Department of Education, Culture and Sports under the 1990
budget amounted to P27,017,813,000.00.

Petitioners seek the declaration of the unconstitutionality of the aforementioned

Presidential Decrees; and to restrain the disbursement for debt service under the 1990
budget pursuant to said decrees.

ISSUES:

• Whether or not automatic appropriation for debt service in the 1990 budget is
constitutional
-Whether or not former President Marcos' PD No. 81 , PD No. 1177 and
PD No. 1967 violates Article 6, Section 24 (All appropriation...bills, bills
authorizing increase of public debt shall originate exclusively in the House
of Representatives) and Section 29 (No money should be paid out to the
Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law) of the
Constitution
-Petitioners argue the PDs give Presidents "undue delegation of
legislative power” because the appropriation lacks definiteness, certainty
and exactness
• Whether or not automatic appropriations under Marcos' decrees expired with his
ouster
• Whether or not to honor the debt incurred by the Marcos administration

RULING:
No. For Section 24: SC took "bills" to mean only measures still to be passed by
Congress, which does not cover Presidential Decrees. Constitutional framers would
have stated expressly otherwise.

For Section 29: Wording of "except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law"

applies to questioned Presidential Decrees

On undue delegation of legislative power: “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…Although the subject
presidential decrees do not state specific amounts to be paid…the amounts
nevertheless are made certain by the legislative parameters provided in the
decrees. 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.”

Appropriation parameters may be made in general or specific terms; no provision

prescribes a particular form of words (i.e. to state exact amounts)

No. Section 3, Article 18 of the Constitution recognizes all existing laws and decrees not
inconsistent with the Constitution shall remain operative until amended, repealed, or
revoked. The Supreme Court found that RA No. 4860 as amended by the assailed
Presidential Decrees "constitute lawful authorizations or appropriations, unless they are
repealed or otherwise amended by Congress."

"As to whether or not the country should honor its international debt...which appears to
be the ultimate objective of the petition, is not an issue that is presented or proposed to
be addressed by the Court. It is a political decision for Congress and the Executive to
determine."