Former Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto III joined the growing clamor expressing concern over the contentious 2025 General Appropriations Act (GAA), portions of which were allegedly left blank but were later surprisingly filled in with allocations by the bicameral conference committee.

The seasoned lawmaker schooled Marikina Rep. Stella Quimbo, the acting chair of the House committee on appropriations, for her statement that the supposed blank items in the bicam report were only for the final computation and were merely ministerial on the part of technical staff.

According to Quimbo, the bicam explicitly authorized the technical secretariats of both the House of Representatives and the Senate to implement corrections and adjustments “as required” in the bicam report of the 2025 budget.

“Some of our legislators need to undergo a parliamentary rules and procedures workshop. Ministerial corrections by technical staff are never allowed in any bill, much more a law. You bring it back to plenary!” Sotto said in a tweet on X on Monday in reaction to Quimbo’s interview.

Prior to Quimbo’s statement, Sotto had already insinuated on X, formerly Twitter, that the “Mandate of legislators is never delegated!”

Former House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez accused the bicam panel of violating Article 170 of the Revised Penal Code for filling up the missing appropriations despite both the House and Senate’s versions of the budget bill already being ratified.

The Davao lawmaker lamented that the bicam’s action constituted a “crime,” and lawmakers responsible may face prison correctional and a penalty.

Article 170 of the Revised Penal Code defines falsification of legislative documents when a person, without proper authority, alters a bill or resolution enacted, approved, or pending approval by either House of Congress.

“What happened is that Congress approved the bicam report with many blanks. The total value of those blanks is zero pesos. But why is it that there were appropriations in the GAA (General Appropriations Act), and the contents were not presented to the plenary for ratification?” Alvarez argued.

Unnecessary

Quimbo, however, countered that the ratification of the corrected bicam report was “unnecessary,” citing Omnibus Provision 2 of the bicam report, allowing technical staff of Congress “for the possibility of corrections, within limits stated in Omnibus Provision 1 (typographical errors and adjustments as a consequence of amendments).”

Sotto had previously disputed this policy. He argued that the secretariat correcting mistakes or typos “must never be allowed” and that the bill must be brought back to plenary for further deliberations.

In an ambush interview on Monday, Quimbo stood by the administration’s position that the 2025 GAA is “lawful, valid, and fully enforceable,” maintaining that the allocation was already determined and approved when panel members signed the bicam report.

She contended that technical staff doing the adjustments as necessary did “not affect the integrity nor the legality of the budget.”

“Notwithstanding any typographical errors or any adjustments that are needed as a result of amendments, the technical staff of both the House and Senate are authorized to make all of these necessary corrections,” Quimbo told the media.

The economist-lawmaker continued that “All corrections that have been added by the technical staff [were] all ministerial. That means it's just a calculator activity. So, they no longer have discretion because everything is already decided by the bicam members at the point of signing.”

But Alvarez did not buy Quimbo’s admission.

“The power to add or subtract, to the contents of the bicam report to be submitted to the GAA, rests with Congress. It should be in the plenary! It cannot be ministerial with individuals or only a group of congressmen. The question is, what did they insert in the budget? Was that ratified by the plenary? And if not, why did they put amounts there?"

Further, Alvarez pointed out that the bicam could not just attribute the blank items for a mere correction, given that it was a solid blank and was allotted zero allocations.

“If the plenary approves the bicam report as zero, the enrolled bill must be zero, and it must be zero in the GAA… Instead of following the plenary’s [allocation of] zero, they made a strategy and filled the blanks with amounts even without the approval of Congress. That's not a correction. That's called unauthorized insertions. That's a criminal act,” he lamented.

The allegations of the missing budgets in the bicam were also confirmed by Kabataan Rep. Raoul Manuel, a member of the Makabayan bloc, who claimed that there were 14 blank entries, 12 of which were under agriculture-related projects and programs.

It was former president Rodrigo Duterte and Davao City Rep. Isidro Ungab, erstwhile chairperson of the appropriations committee, who raised red flags about the missing amounts in the bicam report of the 2025 national budget.

Ungab and senatorial aspirant Vic Rodriguez, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s former executive secretary and now allied with the Dutertes, have already petitioned the legality of this year’s GAA before the Supreme Court.

While the final 2025 General Appropriations Act (GAA) contained no blank line items — after presidential vetoes brought the total budget down to P6.326 trillion — Manuel found it “problematic” that the bicam report did.

Earlier, Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin, whose name was part of the respondents, asserted that the Palace would not be held liable as they had no hand in the bicam report, a matter, he claimed, internal to Congress.

Nonetheless, Bersamin maintained that there were no blank items in the enrolled budget bill, the version forwarded to Marcos for his signature. This year's expenditure dropped to P6.326 trillion from P6.352 trillion after Marcos vetoed line items inconsistent with his administration’s priority programs.

Political gambit

For House Deputy Majority Leader Paolo Ortega V, this move by Duterte allies was nothing but a deliberate attempt to undo Congress’ decision to cut P1.3 billion from the budget of Vice President Sara Duterte’s office, leaving it only with P733.198 million.

Moreover, he stressed that this effort is aimed at blocking the administration’s progress and disrupting 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 that exposes their intent to obstruct progress and destabilize 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.”

Progressive groups, watchdogs, and former lawmakers have been calling into question the alleged discrepancies in the bicam report. The Makabayan bloc has long petitioned that the bicam proceedings must be open to media and public scrutiny because the lack of transparency enables questionable insertions that are allegedly made behind closed doors.