The Supreme Court on Tuesday subjected the government's unprogrammed appropriations system to intense scrutiny, with several justices and experts questioning whether the mechanism has evolved into a modern-day pork barrel that allows Congress to create billions of pesos in spending outside the President's proposed budget.

During the continuation of oral arguments on consolidated petitions challenging provisions of the 2024 and 2025 General Appropriations Acts (GAA), Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier pressed petitioners, government lawyers and amici curiae on whether the controversial funding mechanism complies with constitutional limits on Congress' power over appropriations.

The petitions filed by the late Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, former Senate President Aquilino "Koko" Pimentel III, Filipinos for Peace, Justice and Progress Movement Inc., and Caloocan Rep. Edgar Erice seek to nullify portions of the GAA relating to unprogrammed appropriations.

One of the sharpest exchanges came when Lazaro-Javier challenged the Lagman camp to support its allegation that Congress transfers items from programmed appropriations into unprogrammed appropriations to accommodate replacement projects assured of funding.

"You should have identified these items because you made that conclusion," the justice told counsel Lorenzo Tañada, directing the petitioners to submit documentary evidence supporting their claim.

The justice also questioned the petitioners' assertion that projects placed under unprogrammed appropriations enjoy stronger funding assurances than programmed items.

"So you don't believe the Solicitor General when she repeatedly says that while programmed appropriations are committed by the government, unprogrammed appropriations are not assured of funding and are dependent on statutory triggers?" Lazaro-Javier asked.

Solicitor General Darlene Marie Berberabe maintained that Congress merely identifies projects that may receive funding should specific triggers occur, while the contingency lies solely in the availability of funding sources. She argued that the mechanism does not constitute post-enactment discretion by the Executive but reflects legislative choices already embodied in the GAA.

Economist Solita "Winnie" Monsod, appearing as amicus curiae, delivered one of the day's strongest criticisms, describing unprogrammed appropriations as "a new form of pork barrel."

According to Monsod, the mechanism became a "convenient repository" for congressional projects after the Supreme Court struck down the Priority Development Assistance Fund in the landmark Belgica ruling.

"The unprogrammed appropriations is used as the vehicle for pork barrel," Monsod told the Court, arguing that Congress simply itemized projects instead of abandoning the practice. She also claimed that what used to be district-based allocations evolved into a marketplace where lawmakers could exchange projects across districts.

She further described what she called "perverted prioritization," pointing to the significant increase in flood control spending that she said departed from priorities identified under the Philippine Development Plan.

Asked whether the Court should completely invalidate unprogrammed appropriations, Monsod answered unequivocally: "Yes." She added that while eliminating the mechanism would not completely eradicate abuse, it would remove a major source of corruption.

Former Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Governor and Finance Secretary Benjamin Diokno took a more nuanced position, saying unprogrammed appropriations remain necessary for foreign-assisted projects that are still undergoing negotiations but are expected to be finalized within the fiscal year.

Diokno argued that projects already covered by signed loan agreements should be considered among the government's highest priorities because they undergo rigorous review and generate significant economic returns.

He criticized Congress for substantially reducing funding for major transport projects, including the Metro Manila Subway and North-South Commuter Railway, saying lawmakers "created their own fiscal space" by moving funds elsewhere. According to Diokno, Congress reduced transportation appropriations by as much as 98 percent in one instance.

Former Budget Secretary Florencio Abad also questioned the fiscal soundness of current triggers for activating unprogrammed appropriations, warning that they blur the constitutional distinction between legislative budget-making and executive implementation.

Abad argued that supplemental appropriations expressly authorized by the Constitution provide a more transparent and accountable mechanism for responding to emergencies.

"Foregoing policy because of convenience always creates problems," he told the Court, adding that supplemental budgets preserve public debate and institutional checks while respecting the separation of powers.

Former Senate President Franklin Drilon likewise defended Congress' authority to enact unprogrammed appropriations in principle but warned that the mechanism has been used to create fiscal space for projects outside the President's proposed spending program.

"They just transferred the items that appear in the programmed appropriation into the unprogrammed appropriation in order to create fiscal space where they can put in their own projects," Drilon said, adding that the issue ultimately comes down to lawmakers exercising self-restraint.

The oral arguments continued with the Court examining whether recurring provisions in recent GAAs unlawfully allow the Department of Budget and Management to transfer funds between items under unprogrammed appropriations after enactment, an authority several justices suggested may resemble the post-enactment discretion previously declared unconstitutional in Belgica.