The Department of Budget and Management (DBM) said the Unprogrammed Appropriations (UAs) in the 2026 national budget are “constitutionally valid.”

In a statement posted on its official website on Wednesday, the DBM reaffirmed the legality of UAs amid heightened public scrutiny and growing calls for all forms of discretionary and confidential funds to be scrapped from the national budgeting process.

“[The] DBM maintains its position that the UAs under the FY 2026 General Appropriations Act are constitutionally valid,” the statement read.

Standby appropriation

“As previously upheld by the Supreme Court, the UA is a standby appropriation that may only be released upon the occurrence of clearly defined fiscal conditions and subject to strict validation and control mechanisms. It is not a lump-sum fund nor a blank check for spending.”

Unprogrammed Appropriations are conditional spending authorities that may only be released if the government generates excess or additional revenues during the fiscal year.

However, in the fallout of the flood control scandal, UAs have become a flashpoint in corruption allegations, with critics arguing that such funds are vulnerable to misuse and political discretion.

Erice and De Lima’s petition

The DBM’s statement came in response to a petition filed earlier today by House Senior Deputy Minority Leader and Caloocan Rep. Edgar Erice and Mamamayang Liberal Party-list Rep. Leila de Lima, who asked the Supreme Court to nullify all UAs in the P6.793-trillion 2026 national budget.

In their petition, the lawmakers argued that UAs are unconstitutional because they allow the government to “spend beyond its declared means under the guise of ‘excess revenue.’” They noted that the Constitution requires the General Appropriations Act to be based on a clearly defined budget of expenditures and corresponding sources of financing, which they said contradicts the conditional nature of UAs.

“It is a conditional permission to spend, the activation of which is left entirely to Executive discretion. This is precisely what the Constitution was designed to prevent,” the petition read.

The DBM said it “[respects] the right of any individual or official to avail of judicial remedies,” adding that it had not yet received a copy of the petition at the time the statement was issued.

“Upon receipt, the Department will carefully review the same and, consistent with established procedure, transmit the petition to the Office of the Solicitor General, which is the government’s statutory counsel,” the DBM said.

Rep. Leandro Leviste’s allegations

On an episode of the DAILY TRIBUNE program Straight Talk, Batangas 1st District Rep. Leandro Leviste alleged that P60 billion in funds transferred from the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation to the National Treasury — later ordered returned by the Supreme Court — were funneled into Unprogrammed Appropriations that were subsequently used for flood control projects.