The Supreme Court of the Philippines has ruled that certain additional funding provided by Congress in the 2024 and 2025 national budgets is unconstitutional. This decision, articulated by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, addressed petitions from various parties contesting the legitimacy of increased appropriations.
The court affirmed a petition from Edcel Lagman and others, partially granting another petition from Aquilino 'Koko' Pimentel III regarding the spike in unprogrammed appropriations in the 2024 General Appropriations Act (GAA). The justices identified the 2024 GAA, or Republic Act 11975, as unconstitutional due to an increase of ₱449.5 billion over the President's recommended budget.
Additionally, the ruling overturned a ₱17.99 billion increase to the Special Road Fund within the 2025 GAA, which similarly exceeded the President's proposed total appropriations. The court also sided with the Filipinos for Peace, Justice and Progress Movement, declaring relevant sections of the 2025 GAA unconstitutional related to the funding increase for the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).
The Supreme Court clarified that while unprogrammed appropriations are not inherently unconstitutional, they must be regulated with clear limitations and safeguards to ensure fiscal discipline, transparency, and accountability. The Congress is required to establish concise criteria for prioritizing expenditures when multiple objectives fall under unprogrammed appropriations, aligning these expenditures with the national fiscal program.
Consequently, the court has permanently barred the Senate, House of Representatives, Office of the Executive Secretary, and Department of Budget and Management from implementing specific provisions related to the 2026 GAA.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Supreme Court rule regarding the 2024 and 2025 budgets?
The Supreme Court ruled that certain additional funds from Congress in the 2024 and 2025 national budgets were unconstitutional, particularly relating to unprogrammed appropriations.
Who initiated the petitions that led to the Supreme Court's decision?
The petitions were initiated by Edcel Lagman and others, with partial support from Aquilino 'Koko' Pimentel III, among other groups.
What did the Supreme Court say about unprogrammed appropriations?
The Supreme Court stated that unprogrammed appropriations are not automatically unconstitutional but must have clear limitations and safeguards to ensure fiscal responsibility.
Reporting by Yangs for Rapport Philippines. This report was prepared from available source material and reviewed for factual consistency. Further verified updates will be added as the newsroom receives them.