House rejects bid to recall budget bill

The House of Representatives denied the motion of Bagong Henerasyon Partylist Rep. Roberto Nazal to recall the House version of the spending bill for fiscal year 2027.

Nazal’s bid was intended to reconsider certain provisions of the bill that critics warned could violate the guidelines that were established by the Supreme Court in its ruling on the unconstitutional nature of the 2024 and 2024 national budgets.

The lawmaker had initially pushed the motion last Monday, 9 November, but was set aside until the House resumed its plenary sessions this Tuesday afternoon.

“As one of those who voted with the majority in favor of the approval on third and final reading of House Bill No. 10858, the General Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2027, I now move for its reconsideration,” Nazal reiterated.

Immediately restating the motion, Las Piñas City Rep. Mark Anthony Santos registered his objection to proposal, leading House Deputy Speaker Yevgeny Emano to divide the lower chamber through a voice vote.

The push was eventually rejected after Emano deemed that more lawmakers casted a “nay” vote.

Bearing the results of the poll, Nazal questioned what the House intended to do with respect to the potential issues that may be found in the budget based on the high court’s decision.

With the question being made during the interpellation of ACT Teachers Partylist Rep. Antonio Tinio, it was the him who would respond to the queries of Nazal.

“We agree and that is our call, to recall or to reconsider House Bill 10858, particularly as there is a Supreme Court decision that states that the 2024 and 2025 budgets are not only unconstitutional, but also parts of the 2026 budget which relate to the unprogrammed appropriations and prohibited lump sums,” Tinio stressed.

The lawmaker insisted that the issues that were found in the 2026 General Appropriations Act was still present in the proposed fiscal blueprint of the coming year.

Tinio expressed his disappointment for the lower chamber’s seeming lack of initiative to interpret the Supreme Court ruling and fix its own mistakes in the budget.

Nazal, meanwhile, acknowledged the decision of the House but requested for his proposals regarding the amendments that had to be made with respect to the constitutional concerns that were found in the budget to be transmitted to the Senate for consideration.

“I respectfully request that these provisions be reviewed and appropriately corrected before the fiscal year 2027 budget is enacted,” he stated.