High Court orders final briefs in budget row

The Supreme Court on Tuesday concluded oral arguments on the consolidated petitions challenging the constitutionality of the 2024, 2025 and 2026 national budgets, ordering all parties and court-appointed amici curiae to submit their memoranda within 30 days before the Court begins deliberations.

Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo said the deadline is non-extendible to expedite the resolution of the constitutional issues. The petitions question Congress’ use of Unprogrammed Appropriations and budget adjustments, particularly whether lawmakers exceeded their authority by increasing appropriations during bicameral conference committee deliberations. The cases were filed by lawmakers, former government officials, civic organizations and private citizens, including the late Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, Senate Minority Leader Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III, former House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, former Caloocan Rep. Edgar Erice and former Senator Leila de Lima.

During the hearing, Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa ordered Congress and the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) to submit documents explaining changes made during bicameral deliberations after the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) admitted it had not received supporting worksheets, spreadsheets and project-level records.

The OSG said it had only been provided the bicameral conference committee report and the joint explanation of differences submitted by the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Caguioa directed the OSG to relay the Court’s order requiring both chambers of Congress to file sworn compliance stating whether the requested records exist or explaining why they could not be produced. “I want to hear it from the horse’s mouth under oath,” he said.

The Court also ordered the DBM to prepare a project-level comparison between the President’s National Expenditure Program (NEP) and the enacted General Appropriations Act (GAA), identifying programs, activities and projects that were increased, reduced, inserted, defunded or transferred. The agency was given 15 days to submit the information.

Meanwhile, Associate Justice Raul Villanueva clarified that the petitions do not seek to abolish unprogrammed appropriations but only challenge the bicameral conference committee’s increase in the 2024 budget — from P281.9 billion in the proposed NEP to about P731.4 billion in the enacted GAA.

The petitioners argued that the increase violated Section 25(1), Article VI of the Constitution, which limits Congress’ authority to increase appropriations beyond the President’s proposal. They maintained that the disputed increase was made primarily by the bicameral conference committee after the House and Senate had approved versions carrying the same amount. The Court’s ruling is expected to define the constitutional limits of Congress’ power over the national budget.