Supreme Court Associate Justice Raul Villanueva on Tuesday clarified that the petitions against portions of the 2024 General Appropriations Act (GAA) do not seek to abolish unprogrammed appropriations but only question the increase introduced during bicameral conference committee deliberations.

During oral arguments, Villanueva asked counsel for the petitioners, led by the late Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, to clarify the scope of their constitutional challenge.

The petitioners said they are not questioning the legality of unprogrammed appropriations as a budget mechanism but are contesting the increase approved by the bicameral conference committee.

They said the proposed 2024 National Expenditure Program initially allocated about P281.9 billion for unprogrammed appropriations, but the amount allegedly rose to P731.4 billion after bicameral deliberations.

According to the petitioners, the increase violated Section 25(1), Article VI of the Constitution, which limits Congress' authority to increase appropriations beyond the Executive's proposal.

Villanueva also noted that unprogrammed appropriations similarly increased in the 2022 and 2023 national budgets, but no petitions were filed challenging those adjustments.

The petitioners acknowledged this is the first such challenge filed by Lagman, maintaining that their objections are limited to the 2024 budget.

They said responsibility for the disputed increase primarily rests with the bicameral conference committee, particularly its co-chairpersons, adding that both the House and Senate versions of the budget contained the same amount before the bicameral panel increased the allocation.

The petitioners also agreed that while the Executive implements the budget after its enactment, the preparation, amendment and approval of the General Appropriations Act are legislative functions.