Daily Tribune
DARLENE Marie Berberabe delivers her keynote address during the Gender and Development Forum, emphasizing inclusive leadership and expanded access to opportunities for women.
PHOTOGRAPH courtesy of LANDBANK
The government on Tuesday defended the legality of unprogrammed appropriations before the Supreme Court (SC), arguing that petitioners failed to present a sufficient legal or factual basis to declare the mechanism unconstitutional.
During oral arguments on consolidated petitions challenging provisions of the 2026 General Appropriations Act, Solicitor General Darlene Marie Berberabe maintained that unprogrammed funds remain a valid fiscal tool designed to provide flexibility in government spending.
She said the petitioners’ claims fall short of meeting the standards required to overturn a long-standing budgetary practice.
“Petitioners failed to present any sufficient legal or factual basis to invalidate it,” Berberabe told the Court.
Unprogrammed appropriations are standby funds that may be released only when specific revenue conditions are met, such as excess collections or new funding sources.
According to the government, these mechanisms ensure that the state can respond to changing economic conditions without breaching fiscal discipline.
Berberabe likened the national budget to a household financial plan, explaining that some expenditures are necessarily contingent on income that may or may not materialize.
She stressed that such flexibility is essential for managing uncertainties in revenue generation.
The Solicitor General also underscored that unprogrammed appropriations are subject to safeguards, including validation requirements before funds can be released, and do not automatically translate into spending authority.
The petitions before the High Court question whether the inclusion and use of unprogrammed appropriations violate constitutional limits on public spending and encroach on Congress’ power of the purse.
However, the government argued that the mechanism has long been part of the budgeting framework and remains consistent with constitutional principles, absent clear proof of abuse or overreach.
The SC has yet to rule on the petitions, which could have far-reaching implications on how future national budgets are structured and implemented.
