Marcos, cabinet liable for 2024, 2025 budget concerns – Tinio
ACT Teachers Partylist Rep. Antonio Tinio expressed belief that President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. and his cabinet members should be held liable for the unconstitutionality of the 2024 and 2025 national budgets as implementers of the allocated funds.
The lawmaker maintained that the inconsistencies that were flagged by the Supreme Court in the said budgets were a direct result of the connivance between the legislature and the executive branch of government.
“It takes two to tango. The abuse and excesses that enabled the flood control corruption scandal could happen because of the give-and-take, the tacit cooperation, and the division of spoils among the legislature and Malacañang when it comes to the budget,” Tinio stated.
He stressed that the high court’s ruling highlighted the accountability of both branches as the creator and the distributor of amounts that had violated pertinent provisions in the Constitution.
Tinio said that ruling was “long-overdue” but emphasized that the ruling did not necessarily defer other schemes from forming similar to how the flood control scandal took place nearly 10-years after the high court banned pork barrel and lumpsums from the budget.
With such concerns, the lawmaker urged the public to remain vigilant, warning that "bureaucrat capitalism” could return if left unchecked.
Similar issues in 2027 budget
Aside from commending the ruling on previous budgets, Tinio said that the proposed budget of the House of Representatives for fiscal year 2027 could also be deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court if the Senate does not amend the budget in a way that complies with the ruling.
He highlighted the need to refine the House’s decision to remove funding from foreign-assisted projects in order to boost allocations for “hard” and “soft” projects that he had previously flagged.
The lawmaker mentioned that Congress had two options when it comes to the budget–have the House recall the budget or simply leave it to the Senate to make the necessary changes.
“If they don’t change [the House General Appropriations Bill], it is possible that the national budget for 2027 would also be declared unconstitutional,” Tinio explained.
Among the issues that Tinio found in the 2027 proposal that were similar to those flagged by the Supreme Court were the special provisions inserted as “release triggers” for unprogrammed appropriations (UA).
The release triggers that were indicated in the House Bill No.10858 had reportedly copied the flagged provisions in the 2026 General Appropriations Act word-for-word.
The high court stated that the said policy had allowed the UA to depart from its original feature which meant to have it serve as a “deficit neutral mechanism.”
Tinio also pointed out that the P42.55-billion fund meant to “support” foreign-assisted projects was not itemized in the unprogrammed funds, noting that there was no indicated projects, loans, or agencies for the budget.
He labeled it as a lump sum amount, which was ruled unconstitutional in the ruling of the Supreme Court.
Another issue that Tinio flagged was the decision of the lower chamber to cut the budget of foreign-assisted projects by P130.7-billion to re-allocate to subsidy programs and to boost the DPWH’s Basic Infrastructure Program.
The House budget was approved on third and final reading last 12 October and has since been transmitted to the Senate for further deliberation.
Tinio was among the lawmakers that voted against its approval, citing similar concerns on transparency, accountability, and issues when it came to allocations for pertinent sectors in society such as education.
The Senate is in the process of deliberating the budget ahead of the bicameral conference meetings and final approval from the President.