The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed Congress and the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) to account for documents supporting changes made during bicameral conference committee deliberations on the national budget, after government lawyers admitted key records were unavailable.

During the continuation of oral arguments on consolidated petitions challenging portions of the 2024 General Appropriations Act (GAA), Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa questioned the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) about its failure to produce supporting worksheets, spreadsheets and project-level records covering changes introduced during the bicameral conference committee deliberations.

OSG representatives told the Court they had submitted the bicameral conference committee report and joint explanation of differences provided by the House of Representatives and the Senate, but said the requested spreadsheets and supporting documents were not among the records furnished to them.

Caguioa said the Court wanted Congress itself to explain, under oath, whether such documents did not exist or whether institutional concerns prevented their submission.

"I want to hear it from the horse's mouth under oath," the justice said after the OSG relayed that discussions with congressional officials indicated there were "really no documents."

The justice directed the OSG to relay the Court's order requiring representatives of both chambers of Congress to file a sworn compliance addressing the existence or nonexistence of the requested records.

Caguioa also questioned DBM officials about whether the agency could identify changes between the President's National Expenditure Program (NEP) and the enacted budget.

Assistant Secretary Andrea Magtalas confirmed the department could compare the NEP with the final GAA but said the agency normally prepares statements of differences only at the agency or sectoral level, not on a project-by-project basis.

When asked whether the DBM could prepare a project-level comparison if directed by the Court, the official replied that it would comply.

Caguioa then instructed the agency to prepare records identifying which programs, activities and projects were increased, inserted, reduced, defunded or transferred between programmed and unprogrammed appropriations.

The DBM initially sought 30 days to submit the information but later requested 15 days, which the justice accepted.

The Court also directed the agency to answer additional questions previously transmitted through the OSG and submit supporting documents requested during the earlier oral arguments.

The consolidated petitions challenge various provisions of the 2024, 2025 and 2026 national budgets, including issues involving unprogrammed appropriations, automatic appropriations and the constitutional limits on Congress' authority to modify the President's proposed budget.