Lawmakers from the House of Representatives have asked the Supreme Court to nullify all unprogrammed appropriations (UA) in the P6.793-trillion national budget for 2026.

House Senior Deputy Minority Leader and Caloocan Rep. Edgar Erice, together with Mamamayang Liberal Party-list Rep. Leila de Lima, challenged the inclusion of standby funds in their petition, arguing that the provision violates constitutional principles on public finance, budget accountability, and Congress’s power of the purse.

The two solons claimed 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 Bill to be based on a clearly defined budget of expenditures and corresponding sources of financing.

The petition said a budget that authorizes expenditures without existing and identifiable sources of financing is not a budget in the constitutional sense, adding, “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.”

Unprogrammed appropriations are lump-sum standby funds intended for specific programs or projects, which may be tapped only if excess or windfall revenues become available. Critics have long argued that such allocations are prone to misuse.

President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. signed the 2026 budget on 5 January, vetoing about P92.5 billion from more than P200 billion in proposed standby funding.

Following the veto, the final reserve fund stood at P150.5 billion, the lowest since 2019, according to Malacañang. The Palace said it was confident the budget could withstand legal scrutiny but respected lawmakers’ right to question the allocations.

After the filing, De Lima stressed that the issue goes beyond specific programs and centers on protecting Congress’s constitutional role in scrutinizing government spending.

The lady solon said lump-sum allocations under UAs remove Congress from reviewing projects in detail, undermining safeguards built into the separation of powers.

She added that even if certain funds are supposedly guaranteed for projects, how they will be executed remains uncertain.

She said the central issue is that Congress is deprived of its constitutional role when lump-sum, discretionary funds are included, adding that these provisions were designed as safeguards to ensure transparency and accountability, and that expediency should not override them.