The Supreme Court (SC) put its foot down on the shadowy Bicameral Conference Committee (Bicam) yesterday as it directed the House of Representatives and the Senate to submit supporting documents to explain hundreds of billions of pesos in changes introduced during deliberations, as the Court intensified its scrutiny of Congress’ exercise of its power over the national budget.

The Bicam is a joint panel of selected lawmakers convened to reconcile differences between the two chambers’ versions of the General Appropriations Bill (GAB) after each chamber had passed its own version. 

Once the Bicam reaches agreement, it produces a committee report that goes back to both chambers for ratification. This becomes the enrolled bill which is transmitted to the President for his signature.

The Bicam has been transformed into a body with outsized power, including introducing provisions that neither the House nor the Senate originally approved, effectively inserting new line items beyond the public record of either chamber’s deliberations.

Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen issued the directive before the conclusion of oral arguments on consolidated petitions challenging the constitutionality of Unprogrammed Appropriations (UA), emphasizing the need for transparency in how the bicam arrived at its final budget figures.

Leonen specifically cited the point raised by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa regarding the supporting documents attached to bicam reports.

“I think the point made by Justice Caguioa with respect to the attachments or supporting documents of the Bicameral Conference Committee report is very salient,” Leonen said.

The Court noted that both the House-approved General Appropriations Bill and the Senate version of the 2024 national budget were reportedly consistent with the National Expenditure Program (NEP) submitted by the Executive, yet the Bicam later introduced an additional P400 billion to P500 billion in appropriations.

To clarify how those changes were made, Leonen directed counsel representing Congress to secure records from both chambers.

With Leonen’s directive, the Court is now seeking a complete documentary trail behind one of the most contentious stages of the budget process, a move that could shed light on how hundreds of billions of pesos in appropriations were increased, reduced, or reallocated before the national budget became law.

“Kindly request from the House and the Senate, your clients, whether there are supporting documents, once and for all,” Leonen said.

“If there are none, we need a certification that there are no supporting documents and an explanation as to how they arrived at the increases and decreases,” he added.

The justice added that the Court observed appropriation figures containing centavo amounts, prompting questions about the methodology used to compute the revised allocations.

“We want to know how they are computed and why there is no documentation,” Leonen said.

The directive came after hours of oral arguments examining whether Congress exceeded its constitutional authority by significantly modifying the national budget during bicam deliberations and by creating substantial Unprogrammed Appropriations.

The oral arguments were held on the consolidated petitions filed by the late former Albay representative Edcel Lagman, former Senate president Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III, the Filipinos for Peace, Justice and Progress Movement Inc., and Caloocan Rep. Edgar Erice challenging the constitutionality of provisions in the 2024 and 2025 General Appropriations Acts governing the UA.

The discussions on the consolidated petitions challenging the GAA centered on whether the UA are inherently susceptible to abuse and the extent to which the judiciary may review Congress’ exercise of its power over the purse.

SolGen: not tool for corruption

Solicitor General (SolGen) Darlene Marie Berberabe maintained that the UA is “not inherently a tool for corruption,” noting that the mechanism had existed in national budgets since 1989 and had previously been recognized by the Supreme Court in cases such as Belgica v Ochoa and Araullo v Aquino.

“We all know as citizens of this country that many have been angered by what happened with the 2024 budget,” Berberabe told the Court, adding that both Congress and the Executive have already undertaken reforms, including reducing the size of the UA and limiting its allowable uses in the 2026 national budget.

Berberabe argued that any government power is vulnerable to abuse, but this does not render the mechanism unconstitutional.

She said the proper constitutional inquiry is whether there is a clear violation of the Constitution or grave abuse of discretion, stressing that laws enjoy a presumption of constitutionality that can only be overturned by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda repeatedly questioned the government on the limits of judicial intervention, asking whether the Court should invalidate the UA or instead articulate constitutional guardrails while allowing Congress to continue refining the framework.

Berberabe responded that the Court may clarify constitutional parameters but should allow the political branches to continue implementing reforms, citing pending budget modernization measures in both the Senate and House of Representatives.

Friends of court speak

Former Senate President Franklin Drilon, appearing as an amicus curiae (a friend of the court), similarly argued that the UA is part of Congress’ inherent power of appropriation, but urged the Court to allow lawmakers to adopt self-corrective mechanisms rather than stripping Congress of its authority.

“The power to include unprogrammed appropriations is part of the inherent power of the legislature to appropriate funds,” Drilon said.

He nevertheless questioned the practical necessity of the mechanism, arguing that the President already possesses broad budgetary powers, including line-item veto authority, the power to withhold releases, and the ability to seek supplemental appropriations.

“What you intend to achieve through the mechanism of unprogrammed appropriations can be achieved anyway, even without the items there,” Drilon told the Court.

Former Budget Secretary Florencio Abad echoed concerns over how the mechanism operates in practice, warning that post-enactment decisions on which unprogrammed projects receive funding effectively shifts appropriation decisions from Congress to the Executive.

Abad said the government rarely generates budget surpluses large enough to finance all authorized unprogrammed projects, forcing executive officials to decide which projects would be funded and in what amounts during the budget execution.

“That power is exercised not by Congress, which has exclusive jurisdiction to do that, but by the Executive,” he said, describing the arrangement as creating institutional confusion.

He urged the Court to favor the Constitution’s special appropriations mechanism rather than rely on unprogrammed appropriations, arguing that the framers of the 1987 Constitution never contemplated the latter and that it had enabled massive reallocations of programmed funds in recent years.

Abad cited budget reprogramming amounting to P395.5 billion in 2023, P564 billion in 2024, and P487 billion in 2025 as evidence of the mechanism’s expansive use.

Contingency funds needed

Meanwhile, former Albay Representative Joey Salceda defended the need for standby spending authority, arguing that the country’s exposure to typhoons, earthquakes, and other disasters requires a funding mechanism that could respond more quickly than supplemental appropriations.

He said contingent funds are often insufficient for large-scale emergencies and noted that supplemental budgets typically take an average of 62 days to enact.

“The size and the time element” justify maintaining standby appropriations, Salceda said, citing disasters such as typhoons “Ondoy” and “Pepeng” and the Covid-19 pandemic as examples of emergencies requiring immediate government funding.