Minority lawmakers welcome SC ruling on 2024, 2025 budget

Members of the minority at the House of Representatives welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision to deem the 2024 and 2025 national budgets unconstitutional due to Congressional budget insertions, particularly when it comes to unprogrammed appropriations (UA).

In separate statements Wednesday, Akbayan Rep. Chel Diokno, Mamamayang Liberal Rep. Leila de Lima, Navotas Rep. Toby Tiangco, and Caloocan Rep. Edgar Erice all shared similar sentiments on the ruling, viewing it as a positive move towards transparency in the budget.

Diokno explained the high court’s decision reflected his persistent call when it came to clearly defining and funding priority projects that were included in the General Appropriations Act (GAA).

The lawmaker stressed that Congress’ move to lump the projects under UA exposed public funds to abuse and corruption.

“Now that the Supreme Court has spoken, it is the duty of the Senate and the House of Representatives to ensure that the 2027 national budget is transparent and compliant with the Court’s ruling,” Diokno stressed in a social media post.

In line with his call for accountability in the budget process, Diokno said that it was similarly important that the budget was structured in a way that catered to the welfare and interests of the Filipino people instead of allocating large amounts in “pork” programs.

De Lima, one of the petitioners that filed a complaint before the Supreme Court, said that her main hope was for the concept of unprogrammed funds to be removed from the budget entirely as it provided “undue delegation of legislative power to the Executive.”

She argued that the UA was intended to serve as a “standby funds” but has since been used as a “slush fund” because of the lack of oversight on the amounts.

“Starting with the 2022 General Appropriations Act (GAA), the UA was growing out of control. It became a holding area for pork, where lawmakers could park projects, create artificial fiscal space, and redirect funds of billions to their pet allocations,” De Lima said.

“The Supreme Court has now closed that backdoor,” she added.

The veteran lawmaker would also take note of the ruling of the high court on the “doctrine of operative fact,” noting that authors, proponents, and implementers of schemes related to the unconstitutional budgets could still be held liable for their actions.

Tiangco, meanwhile, said that the ruling affirmed his insistence on seeking transparency from the national budget, particularly the amount that was being allocated to the lower chamber.

During plenary deliberations of the budget, he moved to re-open the floor for scrutiny of the House’s budget and for the same to undergo a similar level of disclosure as was undertaken with other government agencies.

Tiangco further acknowledged the relevancy of the court’s findings, particularly as several efforts have been taken to resolve the multibillion peso flood control scandal which was directly linked to the 2024 and 2025 GAAs.

“What happened with the flood control scandal was a clear reminder on why transparency is important in making the budget. If it is unclear who inserted the amounts, where it is allocated, and how it was spent, it opens the door for abuse and corruption,” he explained.

Tiangco maintained that the issues surrounding the budget did not merely focus on the process itself, it was a massive issue as it complicates national spending when it comes to programs that could boost the lives of every Filipino.

Erice, another lawmaker that filed a petition before the Supreme Court, aired a similar approval to the decision as he stressed that unprogrammed funds had been gravely exploited by public officials.

He noted that while ruling did not necessarily deem UAs as unconstitutional in nature, it still entailed the need for safeguards and limits to be implemented to ensure that no public amounts went to waste.

“Public funds should be a blank check,” Erice stressed.

The lawmakers provided their reactions to the ruling issued by the Supreme Court on Tuesday, 20 October, regarding petitions against the 2024 to 2026 budgets.

It is worth noting that all of Diokno, De Lima, Tiangco, and Erice voted against approving the 2027 House General Appropriations Bill which contained the blueprint on how the government would spend its P7.2-trillion budget for the coming year.

The high court deemed the 2024 GAA unconstitutional as it maintained that Congress’ decision to increase the UA for the said year by P449.5-billion as it found that the amounts did not abide with the budgetary ceilings that were imposed under the Constitution.

It likewise noted that the budget bump had granted the Executive branch of government with an “unchecked spending authority” which in turn weakens fiscal discipline and undermines funding for programmed projects.

As for the 2025 GAA, the Supreme Court flagged the P17.99-billion increase of Congress for the Special Road Fund which was intended for road maintenance, drainage, traffic safety devices, and air pollution control around the country.

The high court said that the increase had also contributed to the jump in the total recommended appropriations of President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.

Aside from deficiencies in program amounts, the consolidated ruling had also prevented the House, Senate, Office of the Executive Secretary, and the Department of Budget and Management from implementing special provisions that were included in the 2026 budget.

It deemed the Special Provisions 1(a) and (b) of Chapter XLIII of the 2026 GAA as “overly broad, lacked prioritization standards, partly functioning as prohibited lump sum appropriations” which undermined fiscal discipline and the coherence with the fiscal program.