President Marcos Jr. is set to sign the 2026 General Appropriations Bill on Monday, 05 January 2026, with a stern warning from a minority leader that it could be challenged before the Supreme Court if he fails to veto the P243 billion in unprogrammed appropriations (UA), derided as “shadow pork” by budget watchdogs.

House Senior Deputy Minority Leader Edgar Erice, among the staunch proponents calling for the abolition of the UA in this year’s proposed P6.793 trillion budget, announced that a petition is already underway in case Marcos ignores calls to use his veto powers to scrap these so-called standby funds, which are projected to be highly vulnerable to corruption.

“My problem is the constitutionality of the unprogrammed appropriations. If the president does not veto it, I and my legal team […] are ready to challenge it in the Supreme Court so that, once and for all, its constitutionality can be put to rest,” the Caloocan lawmaker said in Filipino in an interview.

The constitutionality of the 2025 GAA, branded as the “most corrupt” budget in history, was also questioned by several petitioners before the Supreme Court for featuring bloated UA, where fraudulent flood control projects were reportedly drawn from in recent budgets.

The Supreme Court, however, has yet to hand down a ruling on the matter.

Although Erice acknowledged that the 2026 budget is “far better” than the three recent budgets passed by the Marcos administration, he argued that it remains susceptible to misuse given the UA’s flexible nature.

The UA serves as a standby fund outside the GAA, which the executive releases only when there are excess revenues or when foreign grants or loans materialize to fund priority projects.

Typically, the UA is tapped for emergencies or when infrastructure projects, social aid programs, and other initiatives are required.

However, in the 2023 and 2024 budgets, Akbayan Rep. Chel Diokno said a staggering P141 billion was drawn from the UA to bankroll flood control projects, now at the center of a sweeping investigation over reports that they were substandard and “ghost,” or non-existent.

Erice, Diokno, and other minority lawmakers have repeatedly urged Congress to scrap the UA, arguing that priority projects should be lodged in programmed funds rather than parked in standby allocations.

They contended that placing big-ticket projects in the UA defeats its purpose, which is to address contingencies or unforeseen circumstances.

Furthermore, they warned that allocating such a large portion of resources outside the GAA gives Malacañang a blank check, while weakening congressional oversight and fueling concerns over corruption.

Despite mounting calls to abolish it, the bicameral conference committee retained the P243 billion UA allocation in the 2026 budget.

Big-ticket projects derailed

Erice cited the placement of foreign loan equity in the UA as a glaring example of misuse, despite these being “mandatory obligations.”

In 2024 and 2025, P399 billion worth of projects were lodged in the UA, some of which were priority programs of the administration, he said.

These included the Metro Manila Subway and the North-South Commuter Railway, flagship transport projects touted to transform urban mobility before 2030.

Because Congress placed these foreign-assisted projects in the UA, funding delays pushed their completion timelines to 2032, resulting in nearly five-year setbacks.

“Because of this delay, we will have to pay commitment fees, the cost of materials will increase, and the labor component will also become more expensive,” Erice said.

Based on Department of Transportation projections, project costs could rise by 20 percent, meaning the two rail projects—worth a combined P1.3 trillion—may incur an additional P260 billion in expenses.

Erice claimed these projects were sidelined in favor of flood control, rock netting, cat’s eye, and solar street light projects, where kickbacks are easier to obtain.

“That is why this is unprecedented in the history of Congress. There were massive insertions, diversions, and amendments that reached P1.45 trillion in three years,” he said. “That never happened in any administration.”

Under the House-approved 2026 GAB, a large portion of the UA was initially earmarked for foreign-assisted projects and the Strengthening Assistance for Government Infrastructure and Social Programs (SAGIP).

After backlash, House appropriations committee chairperson Mikaela Suansing agreed to remove P35 billion worth of infrastructure projects from SAGIP.

Opposition lawmakers argued that defunding infrastructure from SAGIP was meaningless if the funds were merely realigned to foreign-assisted projects, which have long been linked to kickbacks.

‘Pork-laden’ budget

A coalition of multisectoral groups, including the Roundtable for Inclusive Development and the People’s Budget Coalition, also petitioned Marcos to veto P633 billion worth of what they called “pork barrel” spending.

They categorized the allocations into shadow, soft, and hard pork.

Shadow pork, or UA, accounted for the largest share, followed by soft pork—politician-discretionary programs such as cash aid and medical assistance—worth P210 billion.

These included the Assistance to Individuals in Crisis Situations and the Medical Assistance for Indigent and Financially Incapacitated Patients, which were allocated P63.9 billion and P51.6 billion, respectively, more than double the amounts proposed under the National Expenditure Program.

Hard pork, involving infrastructure projects vulnerable to redundancy and overpricing, accounted for about P180 billion.

The government operated under a reenacted 2025 budget for five days to give Marcos time to review the 2026 GAA, which he may veto in full or in part.

In 2025, Marcos vetoed P194 billion in line items, including P16.7 billion for flood control projects now under investigation for alleged corruption.