Constantino v Cuisia, Aytona v Castillo

Constantino v. Cuisia G.R. No. 106064. October 13, 2005 Facts: Petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus of the Philippine Comprehensive Program for 1992. Petitioners are members of the nongovernment organization, Freedom from Debt Coalition, which advocates a “pro-people and just Philippine debt policy.” They question the Financing Program started by then President Corazon Aquino, characterized as a “multioption 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. Held: Petition DISMISSED. Issue: WON the President can delegate the power to incur foreign debts to other executive agencies. WON the President can borrow to meet public expenditures in the form of bonds. Ratio/Doctrine: Yes, based on the Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency. Each head of the department is and must be, the President’s alter ego in the matters of that department where the President is required by law to exercise authority. Yes, based on RA 245, as amended by PD 142, s.1973.

Aytona v. Castillo No. L-19313. January 19, 1962

Facts: Then President Carlos P. Garcia appointed Dominador R. Aytona as ad interim (temporarily) Governor of the Central Bank. On the same day, the latter took the corresponding oath. When President Diosdado Macapagal assumed office, he issued AO 2, ordering the withdrawal and cancellation of all ad interim appointments made by the then President and appointed Andres V. Castillo as ad interim Governor of Central Bank, and later qualified immediately. Aytona filed this petition, challenging Castillo’s right to exercise the powers of Governor of the Central Bank. Issue: WON the new President had power to issue the order of cancellation of the ad interim appointments made by the past President, even after the appointees had qualified. Held: Petition DISMISSED. Ratio/Doctrine: Yes. The filling up of vacancies in important positions, if few, and so spaced as to afford some assurance of deliberate action and careful consideration of the need for the appointment and the appointee’s qualifications may undoubtedly be permitted. And once an appointment has been issued, it cannot be reconsidered, specially where the appointee has qualified.