Budget watchdogs and administration critics are determined to proceed with their challenge of the 2026 General Appropriations Act (GAA) following the signing of the budget law that included a compromise P92.5-billion veto of items in the Unprogrammed Appropriations (UA).

The question of the constitutionality of the newly signed 2026 budget will proceed to the Supreme Court (SC) after President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. ignored calls to scrap the P243-billion UA, leaving over P150 billion in so-called standby funds deemed to be a pork barrel susceptible to corruption.

House Senior Deputy Minority Leader Edgar Erice confirmed to DAILY TRIBUNE that the case will proceed and is likely to be filed this week, once he “secures a copy of the budget” that Marcos signed on Monday.

“There should be zero Unprogrammed Appropriations — P1 or P100 billion, it is still unconstitutional. Necessary expenditures must be reflected in programmed appropriations,” Erice said in a message to DT.

Although Erice acknowledged the slashed items, he stressed that partial reductions were unacceptable unless they were abolished entirely.

Over the weekend, budget reform advocates made a “last minute” appeal for Marcos to remove the entire UA from the 2026 budget.

Recto defends UA retention

In a briefing following the signing of the budget, Acting Executive Secretary Ralph Recto said there were roughly 10 projects listed under the UA.

Of the vetoed items, the payment for personnel services accounted for the lion’s share at P43.245 billion, followed by the government’s counterpart funding for foreign-assisted projects at P35.769 billion, and budgetary support to government-owned and controlled corporations at P6.895 billion.

Others were: fiscal support arrears under the Comprehensive Automotive Resurgence Strategy Program (P4.32 billion); comprehensive insurance coverage for strategically important government assets and interests (P2 billion); prior years’ LGU shares (P14 million); and the Revitalizing the Automotive Industry for Competitiveness Enhancement Program (P250,000).

The three projects retained under the UA were: support for foreign-assisted projects (P97 billion), military modernization (P50 billion), and risk management related to private-public partnership projects (P3.6 billion).

Erice’s colleagues in the minority echoed the same frustration over Marcos’ decision to retain some projects in the UA.

Mamamayang Liberal Rep. Leila de Lima argued that the veto of such a “considerably significant” number of items did not erase the fact that the UA is unconstitutional, citing the dissenting opinion of Supreme Court Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando on the recent SC decision ordering the return of the excess PhilHealth funds to the national treasury.

No identifiable revenue source

“They lack definite and identifiable revenue sources, bypass constitutional safeguards, and surrender congressional power of the purse to executive discretion,” De Lima lamented.

Further, she stressed that there was no use retaining the three items in the UA, as there was barely any excess revenue left to collect, citing a statement made by no less than Recto himself.

The UA serves as a standby fund outside the GAA, and the executive releases it 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.

“If there is hardly any excess revenue to collect, what funds will actually go into the UA? Why include items in the UA?” De Lima asked.

Both Erice and De Lima agreed that the UA has no place in the national budget, asserting that programs with the highest priority should be placed under programmed funds rather than the UA.

Minority lawmakers have long claimed that flagship programs and big-ticket projects were deliberately bumped off to the UA to make room for the “insertions” of lawmakers.

This was evident in recent budgets, according to Erice. He said that in 2024 and 2025, P399 billion worth of projects were lodged in the UA, including the Metro Manila Subway and the expansion of the Philippine National Railways, also known as the North-South Commuter Railway.

These are flagship projects of the Marcos administration, touted to transform urban transport before 2030, but which incurred a nearly five-year delay due to a lack of funding.

Initially, the subway was scheduled for completion by 2028, while the PNR extension was scheduled for 2029. However, the government’s lack of excess revenue to fund these projects under the UA pushed the completion date to 2032.

Erice blamed the gutting of crucial projects in recent budgets on the congressional insertions amounting to a staggering P1.45 trillion.

Congress, he said, prioritized flood control projects over the two railway programs because kickbacks are common and much easier to obtain there, along with rock netting, cat’s eye, and solar street light projects.

Erice said the prolonged delay will cost the government an additional P260 billion in expenses to cover commitment fees, labor and materials.

Meanwhile, ACT Teachers Rep. Antonio Tinio strongly condemned the veto of P43.245 billion for personnel service requirements, supposedly intended for hiring new employees and paying the retirement benefits of civilian and uniformed personnel.

He noted that Marcos’ veto message offered no explanation or justification for the specific veto, despite the President himself having originally proposed funding it under the National Expenditure Program.

Tinio said the bicameral conference committee, which was responsible for drafting the final version of the budget, shared the blame for bumping the line item off in the UA “to make room for insertions.”

Public call heeded?

In exercising his veto power, President Marcos said he heeded the public’s call for “transparency and accountability.”

In his veto message, he added: “However, I pushed further and reduced the same to the bare minimum, at a level that was the lowest since FY 2019, consistent with the true nature of the UA as standby appropriations, intended for priorities that are equally urgent and important as those programmed in the GAA.”

“This reflects the common understanding between the executive and legislative branches that these funds shall be tapped only when necessary and strictly in accordance with conditions set in this act,” he said.

No misuse of UA

In his message, Marcos also emphasized that the government will not allow the UA to be “misused or treated as a backdoor for discretionary spending that will exceed our fiscal program and widen our deficit from our original projection.”

“Let me be clear: the UA are not blank checks. Its utilization is provided with safeguards, with the UA only available when clearly defined triggers are met and released only after careful validation,” he said.

“This administration will enforce these safeguards without exception to serve the public interest and advance our national development goals. We will make releases charged to the UA transparent, providing the necessary details on the funding source and the corresponding purpose,” he added.

P633-B suspected pork

People’s Budget Coalition spokesperson Adolfo Jose Montesa, however, said watchdog groups wrote the President to tag P633 billion for him to review for a possible veto.

These included high-risk pork or infrastructure items that might have been duplicated from previous years or still carry a risk of overpricing.

Also identified as potential sources of kickbacks were farm-to-market roads and irrigation projects.

The flagged projects also included the “ayuda” programs, or what is being termed as “soft pork,” which are highly susceptible to patronage politics.