The Supreme Court has been urged by former Bayan Muna lawmakers Neri Colmenares, Carlos Isagani Zarate, and Ferdinand Gaite to immediately resolve their consolidated petitions questioning the legality of certain provisions in the 2024 General Appropriations Act (GAA) and to establish constitutional safeguards against what they described as “systemic corruption” in the national budget.

In a motion to resolve filed on 21 October, the petitioners asked the High Court to act on their plea challenging President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s certification of urgency for the passage of the 2024 GAA, the increase in Unprogrammed Appropriations, and insertions made by the bicameral conference committee.

The motion emphasized that despite President Marcos’ directive in September to return P60 billion in PhilHealth funds earlier transferred to the National Treasury, the case remains unresolved since “the unconstitutional and illegal acts questioned could very well be repeated” in the 2026 budget.

The petitioners cited Senate investigations uncovering irregularities in flood control, school, and road projects, with Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) officials admitting that half of allocable funds were devoted to legislators’ preferred projects. They urged the Supreme Court to help institute “systemic reforms” that would make the budget process transparent and accountable.

Colmenares and his co-petitioners also called for constitutional limits on three major areas of the budget process: the president’s power to certify budget bills as urgent, the amendment of bills already passed on third reading by small committees or individual lawmakers, and the authority of the bicameral conference committee to insert new items not found in versions passed by both chambers.

They also asked the Court to revisit and possibly abandon the Tolentino doctrine, a legal principle from the 1994 case Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, which held that the approval of a bill by Congress cures procedural defects in its passage. The petitioners argued that this precedent has allowed post-enactment insertions and budgetary irregularities to evade judicial scrutiny, calling it “ripe for modification” to reflect modern governance.

“The decision in these consolidated petitions can guide the passage of the 2026 and future GAAs,” the motion read. “The absence of defined parameters invites similar tactics in future budgets once public outrage subsides.”

They further warned that corruption will persist unless the Court acts decisively, citing previous rulings that struck down the pork barrel and Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) but failed to bring about comprehensive reforms.

Atty. Maria Cristina P. Yambot furnished copies of the motion, signed by the petitioners, to the Office of the Solicitor General and other concerned government agencies.