Nov 2, 2012

Guingona v Carague Digest

Facts:
Petitioner senators question the constitutionality of the automatic appropriation for debt service in the 1990 budget which was authorized by  PD 81. Petitioners seek that (1) PD 81, PD 1177 (Sec 31), and PD 1967 be declared unconstitutional, and (2) restrain the disbursement for debt service under the 1990 budget pursuant to said decrees. While respondents contend that the petition involves a political question (repeal/amendment of said laws)

Issue: Whether or not subject laws has been impliedly repealed by the 1987 Constitution

NO.
(1). Well-known is the rule that repeal or amendment by implication is frowned upon. Equally fundamental is the principle that construction of the Constitution and law is generally applied prospectively and not retrospectively unless it is so clearly stated.

(2) 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.

The legislative intention in R.A. No. 4860, as amended, Section 31 of P.D. No. 1177 and P.D. No. 1967 is that the amount needed should be automatically set aside in order to enable the Republic of the Philippines to pay the principal, interest, taxes and other normal banking charges on the loans, credits or indebtedness incurred as guaranteed by it when they shall become due without the need to enact a separate law appropriating funds therefor as the need arises. The purpose of these laws is to enable the government to make prompt payment and/or advances for all loans to protect and maintain the credit standing of the country.

No comments:

Post a Comment