The 2025 national budget has become the latest battleground in Philippine politics, with allegations of unconstitutional maneuvering now reaching the Supreme Court.

Former Executive Secretary Vic Rodriguez and former Congressman Isidro Ungab have filed a petition seeking to nullify the budget, citing grave abuse of discretion by the Bicameral Conference Committee.

At the heart of the controversy is the claim that the education sector’s budget was artificially inflated, with crucial allocations left blank in the Bicam report — a move that, if proven, calls into question the transparency and integrity of the national budgeting process.

The petitioners argue that the Bicameral Committee’s actions constitute a blatant violation of the Constitution’s strict guidelines on budget legislation. By submitting a report with unallocated funds, they claim that Congress has abdicated its constitutional duty to ensure that taxpayers’ money is properly and transparently appropriated.

This unprecedented move, if validated, would set a dangerous precedent wherein budgetary decisions could be made post-enactment, beyond the scrutiny of Congress and the public.

The question is whether the supposed blanks in the budget were left intentionally to allow later discretionary realignments, which could pave the way for pork barrel-like practices.

Given that the Supreme Court already ruled the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) unconstitutional in 2013, such a maneuver — if proven — would be a clear attempt to circumvent established legal principles.

Despite the gravity of the issue, Malacañang has remained conspicuously silent. The President and his economic team have yet to issue a definitive statement addressing the allegations.

This silence could be interpreted in multiple ways. On one hand, it might suggest that the administration is carefully considering its legal position before making any public pronouncements.

On the other, it raises concerns about whether the executive branch had prior knowledge of — or even involvement in — the controversial budget allocations.

The absence of immediate clarification from the administration fuels speculation that this is not just a legislative lapse but part of a larger political strategy.

The Bicameral Conference Committee, often composed of key allies of the President, plays a crucial role in finalizing the budget. If the petitioners’ claims hold weight, the executive branch might have intended to wield post-enactment influence over budgetary disbursements, undermining Congress’ power of the purse.

As the arbiter of constitutional disputes, the Supreme Court now faces the challenge of ensuring that the principles of transparency, accountability, and separation of powers are upheld. If it rules in favor of the petitioners, it would mark a significant pushback against executive and legislative overreach.

However, if it dismisses the case, it could embolden future administrations to adopt similar opaque budgeting tactics, further weakening fiscal accountability.

Moreover, the ruling could impact the legitimacy of the 2025 budget itself.

If declared unconstitutional, the government may have to operate under a reenacted 2024 budget, disrupting public services and development projects. Such a scenario would create economic uncertainty and undermine investor confidence at a time when the country is still grappling with post-pandemic recovery and inflationary pressures.

The controversy surrounding the 2025 budget is more than just a legal dispute — it is a test of the nation’s commitment to constitutional governance. The Supreme Court’s decision will not only shape the immediate fiscal landscape but also set a precedent for future administrations.

Malacañang’s silence, whether strategic or negligent, only intensifies the need for judicial intervention to clarify the boundaries of executive and legislative discretion.

The question now is: Will the Supreme Court uphold its duty, or will this controversy mark another chapter in the slow erosion of democratic safeguards?