SC: Budget ruling does not determine individual liability

The ruling of the Supreme Court declaring unconstitutional certain increases in programmed and unprogrammed appropriations in the 2024, 2025 and 2026 national budgets does not determine the individual liability of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. or other government officials, a court spokesperson said Tuesday.

Supreme Court spokesperson Atty. Camille Sue Ting said the decision focused on the constitutionality of the appropriations, while any civil, criminal or administrative liability arising from their implementation would have to be determined in separate cases before the appropriate tribunals.

“Accountability was not an issue in this case,” Ting said, explaining that the court did not rule on the liability of individual officials.

Ting said that those who authored, implemented or carried out unconstitutional appropriations could be held liable, provided they did not act in good faith.

Whether the President or any other official could be held accountable would depend on the specific case filed and the evidence presented, she added.

Ting’s clarification came amid questions about whether Marcos could be held liable for signing the questioned General Appropriations Acts into law, particularly after the court found that Congress committed grave abuse of discretion in increasing appropriations beyond those recommended by the President.

She stressed that the court's ruling concerned the constitutionality of the increases in both programmed and unprogrammed appropriations, not the possible liability of those involved in their enactment or implementation.

The SC spokesperson explained that the court found Congress had committed an unconstitutional act when it increased the appropriations recommended by the President.

On the possible filing of a motion for reconsideration by the government through the Office of the Solicitor General, Ting said the ruling was not yet final and executory.

The government has 15 days from notice of the decision to file a motion for reconsideration, she said.

Ting also clarified that unprogrammed appropriations are not inherently unconstitutional.

They are allowed as long as they comply with the applicable legal requirements and guidelines.

But the court prohibited the implementation of the questioned 2026 appropriations covered by a special provision that did not comply with the governing rules, she said.

For the 2024 and 2025 budgets, Ting cited the doctrine of operative fact, under which the effects of an unconstitutional measure may be recognized in certain circumstances, particularly when people have relied on it in good faith.

She said programs that had already been implemented and involved beneficiaries who acted in good faith could be considered valid under the doctrine.

Asked whether the government would have to return funds spent under the questioned appropriations, Ting said there would be no refund in cases covered by the doctrine of operative fact.

The ruling does not automatically settle questions of individual accountability, she reiterated, saying appropriate civil, criminal or administrative proceedings would have to be initiated separately.

Ting's statements underscore the distinction between the court's determination that certain budget increases were unconstitutional and the question of whether particular officials could be held legally responsible for them.

The ruling did not declare the entire General Appropriations Acts for 2024 and 2025 unconstitutional. Rather, it addressed the constitutionality of the increases in programmed and unprogrammed appropriations that Congress introduced beyond the amounts recommended by the President.