OSG seeks 5 extra days for GAA reply

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) has requested a five-day extension to submit its comment before the Supreme Court on a petition challenging the constitutionality of the 2025 General Appropriations Act (GAA).

Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra said the OSG is prepared to comply with the court’s directive to submit the original copies of the 2025 General Appropriations Bill and the 2025 General Appropriations Enrolled Bill no later than noon on 24 February.

“Yes, we are ready to comply with the Supreme Court order tomorrow,” Guevarra said.

In a three-page motion for an extension of time to file its comment, the OSG stated that while a draft has already been completed, it is still undergoing further review and revision before submission.

Guevarra noted that the OSG only received the Supreme Court’s 4 February resolution on 12 February, requiring the respondents to comment within a non-extendable 10-day period on the petition filed by former Executive Secretary Victor Rodriguez and Davao City Third District Rep. Isidro Ungab.

He said the comment was originally due on 22 February.

“Thus, while the OSG is aware of the changes introduced by A.M. 19-10-20-SC to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, it respectfully begs the indulgence of the Honorable Court for an additional period of five days from 22 February, or until 27 February, to file the comment,” the motion stated.

The OSG emphasized that the request is not intended to delay proceedings but is necessary due to the reasons cited.

The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments on the petition for 1 April at an en banc session in Baguio City. It has also directed the House of Representatives, the Senate, and Malacañang to submit the original copies of the 2025 General Appropriations Bill and the 2025 General Appropriations Enrolled Bill by noon on 24 February.

Additionally, the court has set a preliminary conference on 28 February in Manila.

‘Inflated’ budget

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

Rodriguez and Ungab argued that the 2025 GAA is unconstitutional for failing to allocate mandatory funding for PhilHealth, unlawfully increasing appropriations beyond the president’s recommendations, and prioritizing infrastructure spending over education.

The petitioners claimed the 2025 GAA violates Article XIV, Section 5(5) of the Constitution, as the budget for education was allegedly inflated to create a “superficial adherence” to the constitutional mandate requiring the highest budgetary priority for education.

They also contended that the 2025 GAA violates Article VI, Section 25(1) by aligning appropriations under the 2024 National Expenditure Program, effectively increasing budget allocations for Congress and other agencies.

According to the petitioners, the 2025 budget further violates Article VI, Section 27, as the Bicameral Conference Committee submitted a report with blank items in the GAA bill.

A key issue in the controversy is the alleged presence of so-called “blank pages” in the budget bill, with claims that they were left incomplete to allow discretionary insertions after the bill’s approval.

The alleged insertions, critics argued, undermines transparency and violates constitutional provisions requiring Congress to pass a final, itemized budget.

Critics of the bill, including opposition lawmakers and budget watchdogs, have raised concerns that these blank pages may be used to allocate funds without proper congressional oversight.

They warn that this could lead to post-enactment budget manipulation, a practice previously flagged by the Supreme Court in its ruling against the Priority Development Assistance Fund.

The government, however, has dismissed these concerns, stating that any omissions in the bill are merely technical and will be addressed through errata and clarifications.