Marcos, Congress may face liability over budget abuses

Vice President Sara Duterte and opposition lawmakers on Wednesday called for accountability from President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and members of Congress after the Supreme Court (SC) declared unconstitutional key provisions and increases in the 2024 and 2025 national budgets.

The High Court’s ruling also raised questions about the proposed P7.2-trillion 2027 national budget, with lawmakers warning that similar provisions in the latest outlay could face constitutional challenges if left unchanged.

Duterte challenged Marcos to explain why he signed the budgets, which had deviated from his administration’s proposed spending plans. She also accused Congress’ bicameral conference committee of abandoning its duty to scrutinize appropriations and instead serve as a “stamping pad” for Malacañang.

“The national budget is the people’s money and not for the political and personal interest of those in power,” she said in Filipino.

“The Supreme Court upheld the law. It is time the President and the members of Congress answered to the people,” she added.

ACT Teachers Partylist Rep. Antonio Tinio said Marcos and his Cabinet should be held liable for implementing the unconstitutional budget provisions, which he attributed to the cooperation between the executive and legislative branches of government.

“It takes two to tango. The abuse and excesses that enabled the flood control corruption scandal could happen because of the give-and-take, the tacit cooperation, and the division of spoils among the legislature and Malacañang when it comes to the budget,” Tinio said.

He warned that similar schemes could recur if the public fails to remain vigilant, adding the 2027 budget could also be declared unconstitutional if the Senate fails to address questionable provisions in the House-approved version of the budget bill.

SC ruling and accountability

In a decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen and released on Tuesday, the SC struck down a P449.5-billion increase in Unprogrammed Appropriations (UA) under the 2024 General Appropriations Act (GAA), which raised the allocation from P281.9 billion proposed in the National Expenditure Program to P731.4 billion.

The Court also invalidated a P17.99-billion increase in the Department of Public Works and Highways’ (DPWH) Special Road Fund under the 2025 GAA. It ruled that the increases exceeded the constitutional limits on Congress’ authority to raise appropriations beyond the President’s proposed spending levels.

The decision further invalidated two provisions in the 2026 GAA governing the release of unprogrammed funds, citing overly broad conditions and insufficient safeguards against unchecked spending.

The Court clarified that unprogrammed appropriations were not inherently unconstitutional but must have clear spending priorities, limits, and safeguards. It also ruled that the doctrine of operative fact protects certain irreversible programs whose beneficiaries acted in good faith, but does not automatically shield those who authored, proposed, or implemented unconstitutional measures from criminal, civil, or administrative liability.

The Court said determining whether specific officials should be held liable for possible violations involving plunder, graft, or corruption was not an issue before it.

Malacañang said it would seek reconsideration of parts of the ruling. Palace Press Officer Claire Castro maintained that Marcos should not be held liable for signing the budgets and said the administration disagreed with the Court’s conditions for releasing unprogrammed appropriations.

Lawmakers flag 2027 budget risks

Tinio warned that the House-approved 2027 General Appropriations Bill could face a similar constitutional challenge unless the Senate revises the provisions governing Unprogrammed Appropriations and other allocations.

He questioned the proposed P42.55-billion lump-sum allocation for foreign-assisted projects, saying it did not identify the specific projects, loans, or agencies that would receive the funds.

He also criticized the House’s P130.7-billion cut to foreign-assisted projects to finance subsidy programs and increase funding for the DPWH’s Basic Infrastructure Program.

Tinio said the House should recall the bill or allow the Senate to make the necessary changes before the budget proceeds to bicameral deliberations. The House approved the measure on third and final reading on 12 October.

Other opposition lawmakers also welcomed the SC ruling and urged Congress to ensure that the 2027 budget complies with the High Court’s standards.

Akbayan Rep. Chel Diokno said the ruling reinforced the need to identify and properly fund priority projects, warning that lump-sum allocations expose public funds to abuse. He urged the Senate and House to make the next budget transparent and compliant with the decision.

Slush fund

Mamamayang Liberal Rep. Leila de Lima, one of the petitioners who challenged the budgets, called for the removal of unprogrammed appropriations from the national budget, arguing that they had become a “slush fund” that allowed lawmakers to park projects and redirect billions of pesos to favored allocations.

Navotas Rep. Toby Tiangco said the flood control scandal demonstrated how unclear allocations and a lack of transparency opened the door to corruption. He had previously sought greater scrutiny of the House budget.

Caloocan Rep. Edgar Erice, another petitioner, said unprogrammed appropriations required stronger safeguards to prevent public funds from being abused. All four lawmakers voted against the House’s 2027 budget bill.

The SC also faulted the Bicameral Conference Committee for failing to adequately document and explain changes to the budget, emphasizing that its role is limited to reconciling differences between the versions approved by the House and Senate.

The ruling places renewed scrutiny on the budget process as the Senate deliberates the proposed 2027 spending plan ahead of the bicameral conference meetings and its final approval.