In the separate and concurring opinion of Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando in the recent Supreme Court ruling that voided the diversion of P89.9 billion in reserve funds of the Philippine Health Insurance Corp. to the National Treasury, Nosy Tarsee noted a passage that, to the learned magistrate, underscored the invalidity of Unprogrammed Appropriations (UA).
The UA has been transformed into a pork barrel conduit in the yearly national budget.
The passage traced the inception of the UA in the 1989 General Appropriations Act (GAA), which provided for around P 9.7 billion for the fund compared to the P245 billion in the most corrupt General Appropriations Act of 2025.
During the Senate deliberations on the 1989 GAB, among the budget items tackled were the proposed UA of approximately P1.2 billion for the “Provision for Foreign Military Sales Account,” and P2.5 billion for the “Implementation of the Conversion Plans of the US Bases in the Philippines Upon the Termination of the RP-US Military Bases Agreement.”
These would be funded by economic and military aid which, at the time, had not yet been granted by the United States of America.
Thus, the UA are deemed as riders to the General Appropriations Bill (GAB), which are prohibited under Article VI, Section 25(2) of the Constitution which states: “A special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose for which it is intended, and shall be supported by funds actually available as certified by the National Treasurer, or to be raised by a corresponding revenue proposed therein.”
Hernando’s view is that a special appropriations bill enacted by Congress is the correct vehicle to allocate excess and new revenue collections outside the framework of the General Appropriations Act, consistent with the principle of preserving the delicate balance between the powers of the executive and legislative branches in the budget process.
The Constitution vests in Congress the power of the purse. The body determines how the budget will be spent; which projects, activities, and programs will be funded; and the amounts to be allocated.
The President proposes the budget, but Congress has the final say on the appropriations.
Hernando wrote: “While the budgetary process commences from the proposal submitted by the President to Congress, it is the latter that concludes the exercise by crafting an appropriation act it may deem beneficial to the nation, based on its own judgment, wisdom and purpose.”
Beyond the scope of the GAA, when the government generates excess or new revenue, it is only Congress, through its power of appropriation, that can lawfully determine how such public funds should be spent. He indicated that the determination should be enacted as a special appropriations law.
“In this Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, however, I espouse the view that the inclusion of the UA in the GAA is repugnant to the Constitution. Thus, it is high time to clarify that while Belgica (the SC ruling declaring the Priority Development Assistance Fund unconstitutional) held that unprogrammed funds are not unconstitutional as lump-sum appropriations, the same cannot be validly embodied in the GAA,” Hernando indicated.
Instead, unprogrammed appropriations should be legislated through a special appropriations law.
Hernando’s point: The Court should never hesitate to declare as null and void provisions of the law that violate any norm or precept of the Constitution.