SC justice: Void Marcos pork

The notorious unprogrammed appropriations (UA), also branded as the President’s pork barrel, are unconstitutional, Supreme Court Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando said in his separate opinion on the recent SC decision invalidating the 2024 and 2025 budget laws and portions of the 2026 version.

Hernando said the standby fund provision violates the Constitution “by their nature and in any form.”

Hernando’s separate opinion goes further than the majority ruling, which struck down Congress’ increase of the funds but kept the mechanism itself.

UAs are described as a “presidential blank check” or a “dictatorship relic” because the wide latitude given to the executive branch to realign these funds mirrors discretionary budget mechanisms from the Marcos Sr. dictatorship era.

Budget watchdogs have also pointed to the President’s control over UA releases.

The Department of Budget and Management (DBM) released P213.8 billion in UA for flagship projects in 2023 and 2024, with President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. signing off on the releases.

Marcos also signed the 2024 budget, vetoing only two items, but leaving the UA intact.

For 2026, he vetoed seven of 10 UA items worth P92.5 billion of P243.4 billion, leaving P150.9 billion.

Budget reform advocates said the veto spared graft-prone items, including “soft pork” programs such as the AICS or Assistance to Individuals in Crisis Situation (administered by the Department of Social Welfare and Development); TUPAD or Tulong Panghanapbuhay sa Ating Disadvantaged/Displaced Workers (administered by the Department of Labor and Employment) and MAIFIP or Medical Assistance to Indigent and Financially Incapacitated Patients (administered by the Department of Health).

The Palace rejected the label. Executive Secretary Ralph Recto insisted the budget is pork-free because legislators cannot interfere in its execution.

In a decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional Congress’ P449.5-billion increase in UAs under the 2024 budget and a P17.99-billion hike in the Department of Public Works and Highways’ Special Road Fund for 2025. It also ruled that UAs are not unconstitutional per se.

Golden opportunity missed

Hernando, however, concurred in nullifying the increases but dissented on the central question, saying the Court “missed an opportunity” to throw out what he called an “unconstitutional monstrosity.”

He voted to strike down all UAs in the 2024 and 2026 General Appropriations Acts (GAA) for violating Article VI, Section 25(2) and Article VII, Section 22 of the Constitution.

He said UAs have become a conduit for graft and “patronage politics at its vilest,” particularly since the flood control scandal erupted.

Economist Winnie Monsod told the Court during oral arguments that Congress itemized projects instead of abandoning the practice.

Petitioners alleged that lawmakers moved projects from programmed appropriations into UAs to assure funding for their “pet projects.”

The Court’s majority ruling found something similar: the 2024 bicameral conference committee shifted programs from programmed to UAs, creating fiscal space for other spending. Hernando said the allegations were “disconcerting” and exposed UAs to misuse.

The justice showed a table indicating Congress added P100 billion in UAs in 2022 and P219 billion in 2023. The 2024 GAA raised UAs from P281.9 billion in the National Expenditure Program (NEP) to P731.4 billion.

Hernando urged the Court to revisit Belgica v Ochoa, saying the ruling against the pork barrel was “rendered inefficacious” by the workarounds.

Like the Hydra, he wrote, “cutting off one of its heads just allows more to spring forth.”

Outside Charter’s definition

Hernando said the Constitution contemplates a budget of “expenditures and sources of financing,” and that the conjunctive “and” excludes UAs, which lack definite funding sources.

For programmed items, the availability of funds is a question of “when,” he wrote, but for UAs it is a question of “if.”

He also held UAs to be prohibited riders under Article VI, Section 25(2), and cited the 1989 budget deliberations in which lawmakers called the scheme illusory.

He said they were conceived as a “fiscal shortcut” to avoid delays in passing special appropriations bills, adding that “practical considerations can never override constitutional commands.”

As an alternative, he proposed allocating excess and new revenues through special appropriations bills backed by a National Treasurer’s certification or a revenue measure.

He said a presidential certification of urgency could speed up their passage, as with the Reproductive Health Law and the Bayanihan Act.

He said the Bicameral Conference Committee (Bicam), suspected of inserting pork projects, has a limited role: reconciling conflicting House and Senate provisions, and he found “some merit” in claims that it was overstepped in the 2024 budget.

‘Unchecked vault’ slammed

Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier, in her strongly worded concurring opinion, called out Congress for subverting the country’s economic and constitutional stability.

She emphasized that while lawmakers have the absolute right to refine the allocation of public funds under their “power of the purse,” they are explicitly barred from breaching the global spending ceiling set by the NEP.

“It transforms a contingent safety valve into an unchecked vault,” Lazaro-Javier wrote, describing how Congress weaponized what was legally intended to be an emergency financial buffer.

Unprogrammed funds are statutorily designed as standby lines.

The Executive can unlock them only if the government registers unexpected revenue windfalls, excess non-tax collections, or new foreign loans.

Power of purse can’t be abused

The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress cannot arbitrarily transfer Programs, Activities, and Projects from programmed to Unprogrammed Appropriations, or vice versa, if the reallocation violates the government’s existing obligations.

Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo, in his opinion, pointed out that when lawmakers casually move vital projects from the programmed to the unprogrammed column, they are effectively defunding operations that may already be tied to binding contracts, essential public services, or sovereign debts.

The top magistrate heavily underscored the real-world economic dangers of these arbitrary legislative adjustments, warning that they could directly damage the Philippines’ monetary reputation on the global stage.

Gesmundo noted: “The power of the purse must be exercised with fiscal responsibility,” emphasizing that the state cannot back out of contractual obligations simply because Congress decided to shuffle funds mid-year.