Case Digest (G.R. No. 106064)
Facts:
Spouses Renato Constantino, Jr. and Lourdes Constantino and their minor children Renato Redentor, Anna Marika Lissa, Nina Elissa, and Anna Karmina, Freedom From Debt Coalition, and Filomeno Sta. Ana III v. Hon. Jose B. Cuisia, et al., G.R. No. 106064, October 13, 2005, the Supreme Court En Banc, Tinga, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners challenged debt-relief contracts negotiated and implemented under the Philippine Comprehensive Financing Program for 1992 (the Financing Program), executed on behalf of the Republic by respondents who included then Central Bank Governor Jose B. Cuisia, Jr., Secretary of Finance Ramon del Rosario, National Treasurer, and Debt Negotiating Chairman Emmanuel V. Pelaez.The petition was filed on July 17, 1992 asking the Court by way of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to enjoin and annul the Financing Program contracts and to compel criminal/administrative prosecution for acts alleged to have circumvented Article XII of the Constitution. The Financing Program had been negotiated in London and scheduled for signing on July 24, 1992; petitioners alleged respondents had already implemented the Program’s buyback component on May 15, 1992 when the Philippines bought back P1.26 billion in external debt. No injunctive relief was issued and the Program was signed as scheduled.
The Program offered creditors two broad options: (1) cash buyback of portions of external debt at a discount; and (2) conversion of restructured debt into new bonds/securities (new money bonds, interest-reduction bonds, or principal-collateralized interest-reduction bonds). Petitioners claimed (a) the buyback and securitization schemes are not “loans” or “guarantees” within Section 20, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution and therefore beyond presidential power; (b) the President could not delegate that constitutional borrowing power to respondents; and (c) the agreements involved grave abuse of discretion and violated constitutional socioeconomic policies, including that some of the debts eligible for relief were fraudulently contracted (relying on a 1992 COA report) and thus could not be waived by the Republic.
Respondents disputed standing and ripeness but urged the Court to resolve the issues because of their transcendental importance; they defended the Program as covering about U.S.$5.3 billion in commercial debt, promoting access to capital markets,...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Do petitioners have standing to challenge the Financing Program?
- Are petitioners’ claims justiciable and ripe for adjudication, particularly their contention that the debt-relief contracts waived the Republic’s right to repudiate fraudulently contracted loans?
- Do the buyback and bond-conversion components of the Financing Program fall within the President’s power to “contract or guarantee foreign loans” under Section 20, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution?
- Was the alleged delegation of the President’s constitutional power to contract or guarantee foreign loans to respondents (notably the Secretary of Finance) valid?
- Do the acts of respondents constitute grave abuse of discretion or otherwise...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)