The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard pointed arguments questioning the legality of “unprogrammed appropriations” (UA) in the national budget. 

Appearing as amicus curiae (friend of the court) in consolidated petitions challenging the 2026 General Appropriations Act, economist and former National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) chief Solita Collas-Monsod warned that the system resembles a modern form of pork barrel that undermines both development and accountability.

Monsod noted that the issue strikes at the heart of governance. 

She said that abuse of public funds in the budgeting process deprives the country of critical development gains and disproportionately harms the poor.

“At the heart of this matter is the abuse of legislative and executive power for private gain,” she added, linking corruption in the budget process to missed targets in income, health, and education.

The petitions, filed in January, question the constitutionality of UAs—standby funds intended to be released only when specific fiscal conditions occur and subject to validation mechanisms.

Monsod described the UA system as “Robin Hood in reverse,” where public funds meant to uplift vulnerable sectors are instead lost to inefficiencies and questionable allocations. 

She warned that these “opportunity costs” weaken the government’s ability to achieve key targets under the Philippine Development Plan (PDP), particularly in poverty reduction and social service improvement. 

“If the budget fails, the plan fails,” she said.

Earlier, petitioners’ counsel Jericho Salenga argued that the budget process itself is being distorted. 

He claimed lawmakers have effectively reclassified unprogrammed funds after the General Appropriations Act is passed, treating them as if already programmed, creating legal ambiguity and potential misuse.

Government representative Solicitor General Darlene Marie Berberabe defended the process, likening the national budget to a family’s financial plan. She said some appropriations are “aspirational” and contingent on available revenues, arguing that flexibility is necessary to respond to changing economic conditions.

Evolving form of pork barrel

Monsod countered, highlighting what she described as the “evolution of a more sophisticated pork barrel system” embedded within the budget. 

Despite the abolition of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), similar mechanisms have re-emerged through large infrastructure allocations and UAs.

Among her concerns were that project selection is increasingly decided during budget preparation, limiting scrutiny; lawmakers continue to retain influence over funding priorities; and unprogrammed appropriations serve as a “repository” for lump-sum insertions.

She also flagged a 2024 budget provision that allowed tapping funds from government-owned corporations, including PhilHealth, though this was removed in the 2025 budget following scrutiny.

Monsod warned that UAs dilute Congress’ power of the purse and weaken oversight. 

She said the funds reduce transparency in public spending, increase discretionary allocations, blur institutional accountability, and undermine fiscal discipline. 

“Higher-than-planned spending could lead to larger annual budget deficits,” she said, adding that such practices risk derailing debt and deficit targets.

She also noted that key economic targets under the PDP, such as GDP growth and deficit goals, have been missed in recent years, and that continued inefficiencies in budgeting could worsen the Philippines’ performance in learning poverty, health outcomes, and income levels. 

“Development targets cannot be met. The Filipino people are robbed,” Monsod said.

At the core of the petitions is whether Congress and the Executive have overstepped constitutional limits in handling public funds, as raised in the consolidated cases G.R. No. 271059 (Lagman v. Congress of the Philippines), G.R. No. 271347 (Pimentel v. Bersamin), G.R. No. E-02472 (Filipinos for Peace, Justice and Progress Movement Inc. v. House of Representatives), and G.R. No. E-04036 (Erice v. Senate).