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

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

Monsod said the issue strikes at the heart of governance, arguing 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 powers for private gain,” she said, linking corruption in the budget process to missed income, health, and education targets.

Filed in January, the petitions question the constitutionality of unprogrammed appropriations (UA) which are standby funds released only under specific fiscal conditions and validation.

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 stressed that these “opportunity costs” limit the government’s capacity to achieve crucial Philippine Development Plan goals, particularly in poverty reduction and social services.

Earlier, petitioners’ counsel Jericho Salenga argued that the budget process itself was being distorted. He claimed lawmakers treat unprogrammed funds as programmed post-approval of the General Appropriations Act, opening legal loopholes and risking misuse.

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

Evolving form of pork barrel

Monsod countered that what has emerged is “a more sophisticated pork barrel system” embedded within the budget.

Despite the abolition of the Priority Development Assistance Fund, she said, similar mechanisms have reappeared 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 cited a 2024 budget provision that allowed the tapping of funds from government-owned corporations, including PhilHealth, though this was removed in the 2025 budget following scrutiny.

According to Monsod, 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 noted, adding that such practices risk derailing debt and deficit targets.

She further observed that key economic goals under the PDP, such as GDP growth and deficit reduction, have been missed in recent years. She cautioned that persistent budget inefficiencies may worsen the Philippines’ performance in education, health, and income.

At the core of the petitions is whether Congress and the Executive branch have overstepped the 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).

SC urged to declare UA unconstitutional

Counsels for petitioners urged the High Court to declare UA unconstitutional, calling the mechanism a “shadow budget” and “blank checks” that undermine Congress’ power over public funds.

During oral arguments on consolidated petitions, lawyer Vaupetroanji Peña, representing Caloocan Rep. Edgar Erice and party-list Rep. Leila de Lima, pressed the Court to strike down the practice to uphold constitutional spending limits.

“This Honorable Court must declare unprogrammed appropriations as unconstitutional,” Peña said, stressing that “only Congress wields the power of the purse” and that spending must be tied to “ascertainable funding.” She likened the funds to invalid financial instruments, warning they function as “blank checks” or “checks drawn against insufficient funds” and are effectively issued by the Executive outside clear Congressional limits.

In a separate argument, lawyer Jerico Salenga, counsel for former senator Aquilino Pimentel III and former Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, said the current design violates constitutional restrictions on appropriations. He noted that Congress expanded unprogrammed funds from eight to 51 purposes, turning a limited standby mechanism into broad discretionary spending.