Introduction

In the Philippines, the legality of high interest rates on loans has evolved significantly over time, reflecting changes in economic policy, regulatory frameworks, and judicial interpretations. Historically governed by strict usury laws that capped interest rates to prevent exploitation, the landscape shifted toward a more liberalized approach in the late 20th century. Today, while there are no absolute statutory caps on interest rates for most loans, courts and regulators scrutinize agreements to ensure they are not unconscionable or violative of public policy. This article provides a comprehensive examination of Philippine usury law, the absence of rigid interest caps, mechanisms for challenging excessive rates, and the associated penalties and remedies, all within the Philippine legal context.

Historical Background of Usury Law in the Philippines

The concept of usury—charging excessive interest on loans—has roots in both civil and religious traditions, often viewed as exploitative. In the Philippines, usury regulation dates back to the Spanish colonial period, but the modern framework began with Act No. 2655, known as the Usury Law, enacted on February 4, 1916. This law established maximum interest rates to protect borrowers from predatory lending practices.

Under the original Usury Law:

For loans secured by real estate or chattels, the maximum interest rate was 12% per annum.
For unsecured loans, the cap was 14% per annum.
Interest on interest (compound interest) was limited, and any stipulation exceeding these rates was deemed usurious and void.

Violations were punishable as criminal offenses, with penalties including fines and imprisonment. The law aimed to balance the interests of lenders and borrowers in an agrarian economy where access to credit was limited.

Post-World War II, the law was amended by Republic Act No. 265 (the Central Bank Act of 1948), which empowered the Monetary Board of the Central Bank of the Philippines (now Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas or BSP) to adjust interest rate ceilings based on economic conditions. Subsequent amendments, such as Republic Act No. 3765 (1963), refined these provisions but maintained the core caps.

A pivotal change occurred during the martial law era under President Ferdinand Marcos. Presidential Decree No. 116 (1973) amended the Usury Law to allow higher rates in response to inflation and economic pressures. However, the most transformative development was Central Bank Circular No. 905, Series of 1982, issued on December 22, 1982. This circular effectively suspended the applicability of Sections 2, 3, 4, 4-a, 4-b, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 of the Usury Law, which dealt with interest rate ceilings. The rationale was to promote a free-market approach to interest rates, allowing them to be determined by mutual agreement between parties in line with deregulation policies.

This suspension remains in effect today, meaning the traditional usury caps are no longer enforced as absolute limits. Instead, the focus has shifted to contractual freedom tempered by judicial oversight.

Current Legal Framework Governing Interest Rates

The Philippine legal system now operates under a regime where interest rates are primarily governed by contract law, as enshrined in the Civil Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 386, 1949). Key provisions include:

Article 1956: No interest shall be due unless it has been expressly stipulated in writing.
Article 2209: If no interest is stipulated, the legal interest rate applies, which is currently 6% per annum on the principal amount (as per BSP Circular No. 799, Series of 2013, effective July 1, 2013, reducing it from 12%).
Article 1306: Contracts are binding as long as they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.

The BSP regulates banking and financial institutions through various circulars and memoranda. For instance:

BSP Circular No. 905 (1982) liberalized interest rates, allowing banks and non-bank financial institutions to set rates based on market conditions.
The Manual of Regulations for Banks (MORB) and Manual of Regulations for Non-Bank Financial Institutions (MORNBFI) provide guidelines on lending practices, including prohibitions on hidden charges.

Additionally, Republic Act No. 3765, the Truth in Lending Act (1963), mandates full disclosure of finance charges, including interest rates, to borrowers before consummation of the transaction. Violations can lead to civil liabilities.

Special laws apply to specific sectors:

For pawnshops, Republic Act No. 10927 (Pawnshop Regulation Act) and BSP regulations cap interest at 2.5% per month or 30% per annum, with additional service charges limited to 5% of the loan amount.
Credit card interest rates are regulated by BSP Circular No. 1098 (2020), which imposes a ceiling of 2% per month (24% per annum) on monthly add-on rates, plus a cap on fees and penalties.
For microfinance and small loans, the Lending Company Regulation Act (Republic Act No. 9474) and Financing Company Act (Republic Act No. 8556) require registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), but do not impose rate caps beyond general unconscionability standards.

Informal lending, such as "5-6" schemes (where PHP 5 is borrowed and PHP 6 repaid daily), often operates outside formal regulation but can be challenged in court if deemed usurious or exploitative.

Loan Interest Caps: Do They Still Exist?

With the suspension of the Usury Law's caps via Circular No. 905, there are no universal statutory ceilings on interest rates for general loans between private parties or from unregulated lenders. Parties can agree to any rate, provided it is consensual and documented.

However, this freedom is not absolute:

Regulated Entities: Banks, quasi-banks, and other BSP-supervised institutions must adhere to prudential norms, but rates are market-driven. For example, housing loans under the Pag-IBIG Fund or GSIS have subsidized rates, but these are not caps.
Sector-Specific Caps: As noted, pawnshops and credit cards have explicit limits. Salary loans for government employees are capped under specific guidelines.
No Caps for Private Loans: In private lending (e.g., between individuals), rates can exceed historical usury levels, but courts may intervene if rates are "shocking to the conscience."

The absence of caps promotes financial inclusion and investment but raises concerns about debt traps, particularly for low-income borrowers.

Unconscionable Interest Rates: Judicial Scrutiny

Even without statutory caps, Philippine courts have the power to declare interest rates void or reduce them if they are unconscionable. This doctrine stems from Article 1409 of the Civil Code, which voids contracts that are inequitous or against public policy, and Article 1306.

Supreme Court jurisprudence defines unconscionable rates as those excessively disproportionate to the loan's risk and circumstances. Key cases include:

Medel v. Court of Appeals (1998): The Court struck down a 5.5% monthly interest rate (66% per annum) as unconscionable, reducing it to 12% per annum.
Chua v. Timan (2008): A rate of 7% per month (84% per annum) was deemed excessive.
Advocates for Truth in Lending, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral Monetary Board (2013): Affirmed the suspension of usury caps but emphasized that courts can equitably adjust rates.
Spouses Silos v. Philippine National Bank (2014): Rates over 3% per month are presumptively unconscionable, absent justifying factors like high risk.

Factors considered in determining unconscionability:

Borrower's bargaining power and financial distress.
Lender's risk exposure.
Prevailing market rates.
Presence of coercion or fraud.

Escalation clauses (allowing rate increases) are valid if tied to objective criteria (e.g., BSP prime rates), per Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Navarro (1987), but must not be potestative (solely dependent on one party's will).

Stipulated penalty charges for default, often 2-3% per month, are also scrutinized and may be reduced if iniquitous.

Penalties and Remedies for Violations

Since the Usury Law's penal provisions (Sections 4 and 5) were not suspended by Circular No. 905, violations of remaining aspects (e.g., non-disclosure) could theoretically attract penalties. However, with caps lifted, criminal usury prosecutions are rare.

Criminal Penalties: Under the Usury Law, usurious contracts could lead to fines of PHP 200 to PHP 1,000 or imprisonment of up to six months, or both. But post-1982, these apply only if a court deems the rate usurious under residual provisions. The Revised Penal Code (Article 315) covers estafa (swindling) if fraud is involved in lending.
Civil Remedies: Borrowers can seek nullification of the interest clause, refund of excess payments, or reduction of rates via civil actions. Damages, including moral and exemplary, may be awarded if bad faith is proven.
Administrative Sanctions: For regulated lenders, BSP can impose fines (up to PHP 1 million per day), suspension, or revocation of licenses for violations of disclosure rules or unfair practices. The SEC oversees financing companies similarly.
Consumer Protection: The Consumer Act (Republic Act No. 7394) and Financial Consumer Protection Act (Republic Act No. 11765, 2022) provide avenues for complaints to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) or BSP, with remedies including refunds and penalties up to PHP 1 million.

Class actions are possible for widespread predatory lending, as seen in cases against online lending apps.

Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Case Law Summary

Key Statutes: Act No. 2655 (Usury Law, partially suspended); Civil Code Articles 1956-1961, 2209; Truth in Lending Act (RA 3765); Central Bank Act (RA 265, now BSP Charter RA 7653); Pawnshop Regulation Act (RA 10927); Lending Company Regulation Act (RA 9474); Financial Consumer Protection Act (RA 11765).
BSP Circulars: No. 905 (1982); No. 799 (2013); No. 1098 (2020).
Notable Cases: Medel (1998); Chua (2008); Silos (2014); Macalinao v. Bank of the Philippine Islands (2013) (on penalty charges).

Conclusion

High interest rates are generally legal in the Philippines following the deregulation of the Usury Law, allowing contractual freedom in setting rates. However, this is balanced by judicial power to invalidate unconscionable stipulations and regulatory oversight to protect consumers. Borrowers should ensure full disclosure and fair terms, while lenders must avoid exploitative practices to evade penalties. As economic conditions fluctuate, ongoing reforms—such as enhanced consumer protections—continue to shape this area of law, emphasizing equity in credit transactions. For specific situations, consulting legal professionals is advisable to navigate these complexities.