Practice question
An existing valid loan is enforceable when made. A later statute leaves the debt’s words unchanged but permanently bars every means of collecting it solely to favor the debtor’s private friend, with no public regulatory purpose or other justification. Officials say there can be no impairment because the principal sum remains printed in the contract. Which response is strongest?
- Substantial destruction of enforcement can impair an obligation even if the nominal principal remains; the formal wording does not answer the constitutional challenge.
- Only erasing ink can ever impair a contract.
- A remedy can never affect a contractual right.
- Calling the debt collectible while forbidding every collection conclusively preserves its force.
- Private favoritism automatically counts as a valid police-power justification.
Legal references
- 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 10: https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html
- Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, G.R. No. L-25246, September 12, 1974, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1974/sep1974/gr_l_25246_1974.html
- Ortigas & Co. v. Feati Bank and Trust Co., G.R. No. L-24670, December 14, 1979, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1979/dec1979/gr_l-24670_1979.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.