PBBM’s alleged illegal acts not SC target

Constitutional Context

Under Article VI, Section 25(1) of the Constitution, Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the President for the operation of the government as specified in the budget. As reinforced by the Supreme Court ruling on unprogrammed appropriations, the budgetary ceiling applies to the aggregate of both programmed and unprogrammed funds.

That the targets of the High Court are the increases made by the House of Representatives and not the alleged illegal acts of President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. is obviously revealed in the invalidations by the Court.

Now, let’s dissect the drama, in the casual sense. How does the President now stand before his own people and in the eyes of the world after the Supreme Court voided the 2024 and 2025 national budgets and declared certain provisions of the 2026 budget unconstitutional, for which he may be held accountable for signing budgets that deviated from the National Expenditure Program?

Executive and Political Standing

Following the Supreme Court’s decision on 20 October 2026, which declared portions of the 2024 and 2025 General Appropriations Acts (GAA) and specific provisions of the 2026 budget unconstitutional, President Marcos Jr. faces a major political and institutional crisis.

Plunging Approval Numbers: According to reports in the DAILY TRIBUNE, the administration is scrambling to manage a severe backlash as the President’s survey numbers have fallen to dismal levels.

Palace Position and Appeal: The executive branch, through Palace Press Officer Claire Castro and the Office of the Solicitor General headed by Darlene Berberabe, announced it will file a motion for reconsideration of the SC ruling.

The Palace maintains the President did not violate any laws, arguing that unprogrammed appropriations are not inherently unconstitutional and that he implemented the laws enacted by Congress.

Opposition and Criticism: Vice President Sara Duterte and opposition lawmakers have said President Marcos must be held accountable for signing budgets that deviated from the National Expenditure Program and for allowing massive congressional insertions, such as P449.5 billion in 2024 and unprogrammed funds and a P17.99 billion increase in the 2025 Special Road Fund. Critics characterized the bicameral conference committee process as a “stamping pad” for budget manipulation.

Potential for Charges and Impeachment: Lawmakers and critics have raised the prospect of legal and constitutional challenges, though administration defenders stress that the High Court’s primary objections targeted congressional increases rather than direct illegal acts by the President himself.

Meanwhile, the administration’s proposed P7.2-trillion 2027 national budget faces intense scrutiny as senators and representatives debate how to restructure unprogrammed funds going forward.

The High Court voided Congress’s explicit P449.5-billion increase in unprogrammed appropriations for violating constitutional rules by inflating the overall budget beyond the ceiling originally recommended by the President.

The Court invalidated as unconstitutional the P17.99 billion congressional hike to the Special Road Fund for exceeding the executive’s total recommended appropriations.

The Court struck down Special Provisions I(a) and I(b) of Chapter XLIII of the 2026 General Appropriations Act. These provisions allowed the release of unprogrammed funds, including P243.4 billion in standby funds, based on narrow non-tax revenue collections, which the Court deemed overly broad and lacking clear prioritization standards.