SC asked to remove UAs from 2026 budget
‘These provisions were meant to safeguard transparency and accountability. Expediency alone should not override them.’
House lawmakers have asked the Supreme Court to strike down all Unprogrammed Appropriations (UA) in the P6.793-trillion 2026 national budget.
On Thursday, House Senior Deputy Minority Leader Edgar Erice and Mamamayang Liberal (ML) Party-list Rep. Leila de Lima filed a petition challenging the inclusion of the UA or standby funds in the national outlay, arguing that it violates constitutional principles on public finance, budget accountability, and Congress’ power of the purse.
Caloocan City Representative Erice and De Lima said UAs are unconstitutional because they allow the government to “spend beyond its declared means under the guise of ‘excess revenue.’” They pointed out that the Constitution requires budgets to be based on clearly defined expenditures and corresponding funding sources.
“A budget that authorizes spending without identifiable sources is not a budget in the constitutional sense,” their petition read. “Its conditional permission is left entirely to the Executive’s discretion. This is exactly what the Constitution is designed to prevent.”
UAs are lump-sum standby funds intended for programs or projects that would be tapped only if excess or windfall revenues are available. Critics have long warned that such allocations are prone to misuse.
President Marcos signed the 2026 national budget on 5 January, trimming about P92.5 billion from the over P200 billion in proposed standby funding. The final reserve fund now stands at P150.5 billion — the lowest since 2019, Malacañang said. The Palace remains confident the budget can withstand legal scrutiny but acknowledged lawmakers’ right to question the allocations.
De Lima stressed that the issue isn’t about specific programs, but about protecting Congress’ constitutional role. She said lump-sum allocations under UAs remove Congress ability to review projects in detail, undermining transparency and accountability.
“Even if funds are guaranteed for certain projects, how they will be executed remains uncertain,” she said. “These provisions were meant to safeguard transparency and accountability. Expediency alone should not override them.”