CONSTANTINO V.

CUISIA
October 13, 2005
FACTS:
Petitioners are members of the non-government organization, Freedom from
Debt Coalition, which advocates a pro-people and just Philippine debt policy. They
questioned the Financing Program started by then President Corazon Aquino,
characterized as a multi-option financing package, wherein the President entered into
three restructuring agreements with foreign creditor governments. Petitioners stress that
unlike other powers which may be validly delegated by the President, the power to incur
foreign debts is expressly reserved by the Constitution in the person of the President.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the President can delegate the power to incur foreign debts to
other executive agencies.
RULING:
Yes, based on the Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency. Each head of the
department is and must be, the Presidents alter ego in the matters of that department
where the President is required by law to exercise authority. The language of the
Constitution is simple and clear as it is broad. It allows the President to contract and
guarantee foreign loans. It makes no prohibition on the issuance of certain kinds of
loans or distinctions as to which kinds of debt instruments are more onerous than
others. This Court may not ascribe to the Constitution meanings and restrictions that
would unduly burden the powers of the President. The plain, clear and unambiguous
language of the Constitution should be construed in a sense that will allow the full
exercise of the power provided therein. It would be the worst kind of judicial legislation if
the courts were to misconstrue and change the meaning of the organic act.

The only restriction that the Constitution provides, aside from the prior
concurrence of the Monetary Board, is that the loans must be subject to limitations
provided by law.

Sovereign bonds may be issued not only to supplement government

expenditures but also to provide for the purchase, redemption, or refunding of any
obligation, either direct or guaranteed, of the Philippine Government.

ABAYA V. EBDANE
February 14, 2007
FACTS:
The petitioners, Plaridel M. Abaya who claims that he filed the instant petition as
a taxpayer, former lawmaker, and a Filipino citizen, and Plaridel C. Garcia likewise
claiming that he filed the suit as a taxpayer, former military officer, and a Filipino citizen,
mainly seek to nullify a DPWH resolution which recommended the award to private
respondent China Road & Bridge Corporation of the contract for the implementation of
the civil works known as Contract Package No. I (CPI). They also seek to annul the
contract of agreement subsequently entered into by and between the DPWH and
private respondent China Road & Bridge Corporation pursuant to the said resolution.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Loan Agreement No. PH-204 between the JBIC and the
Philippine Government is a kind of a treaty.
RULING:
The Loan Agreement No. PH-204 taken in conjunction with the Exchange of
Notes dated December 27, 1999 between the Japanese Government and the Philippine
Government is an executive agreement.
An exchange of notes is a record of a routine agreement that has many
similarities with the private law contract. The agreement consists of the exchange of two
documents, each of the parties being in the possession of the one signed by the
representative of the other. Treaties, agreements, conventions, charters, protocols,
declarations, memoranda of understanding, modus vivendi and exchange of notes all
are refer to international instruments binding at international law. Although these
instruments differ from each other by title, they all have common features and
international law has applied basically the same rules to all these instruments. These
rules are the result of long practice among the States, which have accepted them as
binding norms in their mutual relations. Therefore, they are regarded as international
customary law. That case was dismissed by the SCORP last Feb. 14 2007.