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

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.