SC: Officials behind unconstitutional budget hikes may face charges
Government officials responsible for proposing, approving or implementing unconstitutional budget increases under the 2024 and 2025 General Appropriations Acts (GAAs) may still face criminal, civil or administrative liability, the Supreme Court has ruled.
In a 121-page decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen and released on 20 October, the High Court clarified that the doctrine of operative fact does not automatically protect officials involved in unconstitutional budget measures.
The doctrine may preserve the effects of completed government programs and transactions involving beneficiaries who acted in good faith, but it does not shield the authors, proponents or implementers of the invalidated provisions from accountability.
The Court said those officials could invoke good faith only if established before the appropriate tribunal.
It emphasized, however, that determining individual liability, including possible violations of laws against plunder, graft and corruption, was not among the issues resolved in the case.
The ruling declared unconstitutional Congress' P449.5-billion increase in unprogrammed appropriations under the 2024 national budget and a P17.99-billion increase in the Department of Public Works and Highways' Special Road Fund under the 2025 budget.
The Court also invalidated a P12.75-billion increase in certain agencies' Special Accounts in the General Fund for violating restrictions under the Administrative Code.
According to the decision, the increases resulted partly from changes introduced during bicameral conference committee deliberations, including transfers of infrastructure and social assistance allocations from programmed to unprogrammed appropriations.
These involved DPWH infrastructure projects, medical assistance for indigent patients, the Department of Social Welfare and Development's Ayuda sa Kapos ang Kita Program, and the Department of Labor and Employment's Tulong Panghanapbuhay sa Ating Disadvantaged or Displaced Workers Program.
The Supreme Court also declared the Strengthening Assistance for Government Infrastructure and Social Programs (SAGIP) provisions in the 2024 and 2025 budgets unconstitutional, describing them as prohibited lump-sum appropriations.
The provisions allowed the executive branch to identify projects after the national budget had been enacted, including infrastructure and flood control projects under the DPWH.
The Court faulted the bicameral conference committee for failing to adequately document and justify the changes, stressing that its function is to reconcile differences between the House and Senate budget versions.
It further struck down two provisions of the 2026 GAA governing the release of unprogrammed appropriations, citing inadequate safeguards against unauthorized spending.
The High Court permanently prohibited the concerned government offices from implementing the invalidated 2026 provisions.
Nevertheless, the Court clarified that unprogrammed appropriations are not inherently unconstitutional, provided they comply with constitutional requirements, clear spending conditions and accountability safeguards.
The decision stemmed from separate petitions challenging provisions of the 2024, 2025 and 2026 national budgets.