High Court voids spending hikes

The Supreme Court (SC) has declared unconstitutional Congress’ P449.5-billion increase in Unprogrammed Appropriations under the 2024 national budget and its P17.99-billion hike in the Department of Public Works and Highways’ (DPWH) Special Road Fund in 2025, ruling that both exceeded the total appropriations proposed by the President.

In a decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the SC en banc on 20 October 2026 also invalidated two provisions of the 2026 national budget governing the release of unprogrammed funds, citing insufficient safeguards against unchecked spending.

The Court clarified that Unprogrammed Appropriations are not inherently unconstitutional but must have clear limits, spending priorities and safeguards to ensure transparency and fiscal discipline.

The ruling stemmed from petitions challenging the 2024 and 2025 budgets and provisions on Unprogrammed Appropriations in the 2026 General Appropriations Act (GAA).

The SC granted the petition filed by Edcel C. Lagman and others challenging the 2024 budget, partly granted a separate petition led by Sen. Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III, and granted a petition filed by the Filipinos for Peace, Justice and Progress Movement Inc. and others against the 2025 budget.

The P449.5-billion increase in 2024 resulted from changes made by the bicameral conference committee, which transferred projects from programmed to unprogrammed appropriations and increased allocations for infrastructure, medical assistance and social programs.

These included DPWH infrastructure projects, the Sustainable Infrastructure Projects Alleviating Gap, 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 Court also ruled that a P12.75-billion increase in certain agencies’ Special Accounts in the General Fund violated the Administrative Code, which bars Congress from raising amounts under special provisions beyond those proposed by the President.

It further declared the Strengthening Assistance for Government Infrastructure and Social Programs a prohibited lump-sum appropriation in the 2024 and 2025 budgets. The provision allowed the Executive to identify projects after the budget was enacted and served as a repository for DPWH infrastructure allocations, including flood control works.

The SC faulted the bicameral conference committee for failing to adequately document and explain budget changes, stressing that its role is limited to resolving differences between House and Senate versions.

The Court permanently barred the Senate, House of Representatives, Office of the Executive Secretary and acting Department of Budget and Management secretary from implementing the invalidated provisions of the 2026 GAA.

For the 2024 and 2025 budgets, it applied the doctrine of operative fact, preserving limited effects involving irreversible programs whose beneficiaries acted in good faith.

The ruling requires clear spending priorities, prohibits lump-sum allocations in unprogrammed appropriations and demands consistency with the government’s overall fiscal program.