Practice question
A statute cancels an identified debtor's accrued payment obligation under an existing valid loan solely to reward a private friendship. It supplies no public regulatory purpose or other constitutional justification, and no other lawful defense to payment exists. The state argues that any statute is immune from non-impairment review if called economic policy. What is the strongest answer?
- Every economic-policy label conclusively validates cancellation
- The existing creditor has no contractual obligation protected by the clause
- Only verbal contracts receive constitutional protection
- The arbitrary legislative cancellation presents prohibited impairment; the label supplies no legitimate police-power justification
- The creditor must voluntarily surrender its claim whenever a law names a debtor
Legal references
- 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 10, non-impairment of contractual obligations: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/3/353
- Ortigas & Co., Limited Partnership v. Feati Bank and Trust Co., G.R. No. L-24670, December 14, 1979, main decision, non-impairment and legitimate police power: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1979/dec1979/gr_l-24670_1979.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.