The Supreme Court on Tuesday continued oral arguments on the constitutionality of unprogrammed appropriations, with justices probing whether the budget mechanism requires stricter constitutional safeguards while government lawyers argued that the system is a legitimate fiscal tool that should be reformed rather than abolished.

The hearing on consolidated petitions challenging the General Appropriations Act centered on whether unprogrammed appropriations are inherently susceptible to abuse and the extent to which the judiciary may review Congress' exercise of its power over the purse.

Solicitor General Darlene Marie Berberabe maintained that unprogrammed appropriations are "not inherently a tool for corruption," noting that the mechanism has existed in national budgets since 1989 and has 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 many have been angered by what has happened in the 2024 budget," Berberabe told the Court, adding that both Congress and the Executive have already undertaken reforms, including reducing the size of unprogrammed appropriations and limiting their allowable uses in the 2026 budget.

Berberabe argued that any government power is vulnerable to abuse but said 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 reasonable doubt.

Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda repeatedly questioned the government on the limits of judicial intervention, asking whether the Court should invalidate unprogrammed appropriations 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 Act measures in both the Senate and House of Representatives.

Former Senate President Franklin Drilon, appearing as amicus curiae, similarly argued that unprogrammed appropriations are part of Congress' inherent power of appropriation but urged the Court to allow lawmakers to adopt self-corrective mechanisms instead of 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 appropriation 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 shift appropriation decisions from Congress to the Executive.

Abad said the country rarely generates budget surpluses large enough to finance all authorized unprogrammed projects, forcing executive officials to decide which projects will be funded and in what amounts during 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 also urged the Court to favor the Constitution's special appropriations mechanism instead of relying on unprogrammed appropriations, arguing that the latter was never contemplated by the framers of the 1987 Constitution and has enabled massive reallocations of programmed funds in recent years.

Abad cited 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.

Former Albay Representative Joey Salceda defended the need for standby spending authority, arguing that the Philippines' exposure to typhoons, earthquakes, and other disasters requires a funding mechanism capable of responding 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.

The justices also examined the practice of transferring foreign-assisted projects from programmed to unprogrammed appropriations.

Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier questioned whether such transfers merely create an "artificial fiscal space" because the loan financing attached to those projects necessarily follows them into the unprogrammed category.

She suggested that the resulting fiscal space may exist only on paper while effectively committing the government to secure additional financing for newly inserted projects.

The oral arguments form part of consolidated petitions filed by the late former Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, former Senate President Aquilino "Koko" Pimentel III, Filipinos for Peace, Justice and Progress Movement Inc., and Caloocan Rep. Edgar Erice challenging the legality and constitutional limits of unprogrammed appropriations under the national budget.