The Supreme Court (SC) was asked in a taxpayer’s suit to declare Republic Act 12116, also known as the General Appropriations Act (GAA) for Fiscal Year 2025, unconstitutional.

In a 25-page petition, the petitioners argued that R.A. 12116 violated Article II, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution in relation to Sections 10, 11 and 37 of Republic Act 1123, also known as the Universal Health Care Act.

They also claimed that the 2025 GAA breached Article VI, Section 25(1) of the Constitution, as the respondents aligned proposed appropriations with the 2024 National Expenditure Program (NEP), effectively increasing the budget for Congress and other line agencies.

The petitioners also argued that the 2025 GAA violated Article XIV, Section 5(5) of the Constitution, claiming that the education sector’s budget was artificially inflated to give the illusion of prioritizing education in accordance with the constitutional mandate.

The petition also alleged that the GAA violated Article VI, Section 27 of the Constitution when the Bicameral Conference Committee submitted a report with blank items on the GAA Bill.

Respondents in the petition include the House of Representatives, headed by Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez, and the Senate, represented by Senate President Francis Escudero and Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin.

Among the petitioners are former Executive Secretary and 2025 senatorial candidate Victor Rodriguez, Davao City Third District Rep. Isidro Ungab, and other taxpayers and members of the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) such as Rogelio Mendoza, Benito Ching, Redemberto Villanueva, Roseller dela Peña, Santos Catuba and Dominic Solis.

The petition highlighted that the Universal Health Care Act mandates the national government to subsidize the premium contributions of indirect contributors — those who cannot pay premiums or are unemployed, non-self-earning, non-professional, or non-lifetime members.

However, they pointed out that the 2025 GAA did not allocate funds for PhilHealth despite its reported P600 billion reserve funds, which consist of surplus and investments.

The petitioners argued that PhilHealth’s surplus and investment funds should be used to increase benefits and reduce member contributions as mandated by Section 11 of the Universal Health Care Act.

Instead, the petition claimed, these funds were not being utilized for PhilHealth’s operational budget, deviating from the law’s goals.

The petitioners also criticized the government for failing to meet its obligation to subsidize contributions for indirect contributors, putting PhilHealth in a position where it could not provide enhanced health benefits in line with the law, thus violating the constitutional right to health of all Filipinos.

Additionally, the petitioners challenged the increase in the budgets of the House and Senate. The proposed budget for the House under the 2025 NEP was P16.35 billion. However, the General Appropriations Bill approved by the President and passed as RA 12116 allocated P33.67 billion, more than double the original proposed budget.

Political gambit

For House Deputy Majority Leader Paolo Ortega V, the petition filed by allies of Vice President Sara Duterte was a deliberate attempt to reverse Congress’ decision to cut P1.3 billion from the budget of the Vice President’s office, reducing it to just P733.198 million.

Ortega emphasized that this move is part of a broader effort to hinder the administration’s progress and disrupt governance.

“The petition filed by Rep. Isidro Ungab, Atty. Vic Rodriguez, and their allies before the Supreme Court questioning provisions in the 2025 General Appropriations Act (GAA) is more than just a legal maneuver — it is a calculated political gambit aimed at obstructing progress and destabilizing the administration of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.,” Ortega said.

He added, “The motives behind this petition are suspect, to say the least. This is not just about budgetary provisions — it is about political leverage.”

Sotto, Alvarez hit blank entries

Former Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto III has joined the growing criticism over the 2025 General Appropriations Act (GAA), following reports that portions initially left blank were later filled in with allocations by the Bicameral Conference Committee.

Sotto criticized Marikina Rep. Stella Quimbo, the acting chair of the House Committee on Appropriations, for her claim that the blank items in the Bicam report were only for final computations and were merely ministerial tasks carried out by technical staff.

Sotto, responding on X (formerly Twitter), stated, “Some of our legislators need to undergo parliamentary rules and procedures workshops. Ministerial corrections by technical staff are never allowed in any bill, much more a law. You bring it back to plenary!”

He also emphasized that “the mandate of legislators is never delegated.”

Former House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez also accused the Bicam panel of violating Article 170 of the Revised Penal Code for filling in the missing appropriations after both the House and Senate’s versions of the budget had been ratified.

Alvarez described the Bicam’s actions as a “crime” and warned that those responsible could face prison and a penalty. Article 170 defines falsification of legislative documents as altering a bill or resolution without proper authority.

Quimbo defended the administration’s stance on the GAA, asserting that it is “lawful, valid, and fully enforceable.” She argued that the allocations were decided and approved when the Bicam members signed the report.

Quimbo explained that technical staff were authorized to make necessary corrections but insisted these changes did not affect the integrity or legality of the budget.

However, Alvarez rejected Quimbo’s explanation, emphasizing that the power to make such changes rests with Congress, not with individuals or a small group of congressmen.

He questioned what had been inserted into the budget and whether those changes were ratified by the plenary, accusing the Bicam of making unauthorized insertions, which he labeled as criminal acts.

Further allegations about the missing amounts were confirmed by Kabataan Rep. Raoul Manuel, who said there were 14 blank entries in the Bicam report, 12 of which were related to agriculture projects.

Former President Rodrigo Duterte and Davao City Rep. Isidro Ungab had also flagged concerns about the missing funds.

While Bersamin maintained that the Palace had no involvement in the Bicam report and that it was an internal matter within Congress, progressive groups and former lawmakers continue to demand more transparency in the Bicam proceedings to avoid such discrepancies and alleged insertions.