SC to resume oral arguments on petitions vs unprogrammed funds, special accounts

The Supreme Court (SC) is set to resume oral arguments on the consolidated petitions questioning the constitutionality of unprogrammed funds and Special Accounts in the General Fund under the 2024, 2025, and 2026 General Appropriations Acts (GAA).

In an advisory, the SC announced that the continuation of oral arguments will be held on 2 June, 9 June, and 16 June 2026, at 9:30 a.m. at the SC En Banc Session Hall and Division Hearing Room in Padre Faura, Manila.

The consolidated petitions challenge provisions on unprogrammed appropriations and special accounts, which petitioners claim were used to increase the national budget beyond the amounts approved by Congress during plenary deliberations.

According to the petitions, the questioned allocations and amendments were allegedly introduced during bicameral conference committee proceedings, raising concerns over transparency, congressional authority, and compliance with constitutional limitations on government expenditures.

Among the cases consolidated by the SC are G.R. No. 271059 and G.R. No. 271347, filed by former and incumbent lawmakers including former Albay First District Representative Edcel Lagman, former Camarines Sur Representative Gabriel Bordado Jr., former Basilan Representative Mujiv Hataman, former Senator Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III, and former House Speaker Pantaleon “Bebot” Alvarez.

The petitioners are seeking to nullify the alleged P449.5-billion insertion in the 2024 national budget, arguing that the changes exceeded the authority of Congress and violated constitutional safeguards in the appropriations process.

Another petition, G.R. No. E-02472, filed by Filipinos for Peace, Justice and Progress Movement Inc., questions amendments involving special accounts and appropriations in the 2025 GAA. The petition specifically cites the reported increase in the Department of Public Works and Highways’ Special Road Fund from P16.756 billion to P34.748 billion.

Meanwhile, in G.R. No. E-04036, Caloocan Second District Representative Edgar Erice and Mamamayang Liberal Party-list Representative Leila de Lima are challenging provisions authorizing unprogrammed appropriations in the 2026 GAA.

The petitioners contend that the allocations violate constitutional restrictions on appropriations and public spending.

The SC consolidated the petitions due to what it described as common legal questions involving congressional authority, budget execution, and constitutional limitations on government expenditures.

The outcome of the oral arguments is expected to have significant implications for the government’s budgeting process and the scope of Congress’ power in approving and amending national expenditures.