The Supreme Court has ordered Congress to explain how an estimated ₱400 billion to ₱500 billion in budget adjustments were introduced during bicameral conference committee deliberations, raising fresh questions about transparency, accountability, and the constitutional limits of lawmakers’ power over public funds. The directive comes amid ongoing legal challenges to Unprogrammed Appropriations and growing scrutiny of the budget process that could have far-reaching implications for future government spending.
MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has intensified its scrutiny of the national budget process, directing both the House of Representatives and the Senate to provide documents explaining how hundreds of billions of pesos were added and reallocated during bicameral conference committee deliberations.
During oral arguments on Tuesday, Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen ordered Congress to submit supporting records detailing the basis for significant budget adjustments made after the House and Senate had already approved their respective versions of the General Appropriations Bill.
The directive came as the High Court continued hearing consolidated petitions challenging the constitutionality of Unprogrammed Appropriations (UA) and examining whether Congress exceeded its constitutional authority in revising the national budget.
Leonen highlighted concerns raised by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin “Ben” Caguioa regarding the apparent lack of supporting documents attached to bicameral conference committee reports.
According to discussions before the Court, both the House-approved and Senate-approved versions of the national budget were generally aligned with the National Expenditure Program submitted by the Executive branch. However, during bicameral deliberations, lawmakers reportedly introduced an additional P400 billion to P500 billion in appropriations.
The significant increase prompted the Court to seek a clearer explanation of how the adjustments were made.
“I think the point made by Justice Caguioa with respect to the attachments or supporting documents of the bicameral conference committee report is very salient,” Leonen said during the proceedings. The magistrate instructed lawyers representing Congress to secure records from both legislative chambers showing how the revised figures were determined.
“Kindly request from the House and the Senate, your clients, whether there are supporting documents, once and for all,” Leonen said.
“If there are none, we need a certification that there are no supporting documents and an explanation as to how they arrived at the increases and decreases.” The Court also questioned the methodology behind some of the appropriations, noting that several budget figures included precise centavo amounts.
Leonen said such detailed figures naturally raise questions regarding the calculations and documentation behind the allocations. “We want to know how they are computed and why there are no documentations,” he said.
The inquiry reflects growing concerns about transparency and accountability in the budget-making process, particularly in bicameral conference committee proceedings where final adjustments to appropriations are often negotiated before a budget measure is ratified.
The oral arguments stem from petitions filed by the late former Albay Representative Edcel Lagman, former Senate President Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III, the Filipinos for Peace, Justice and Progress Movement Inc., and Caloocan Representative Edgar Erice.
The petitioners are challenging provisions of the 2024 and 2025 General Appropriations Acts that govern Unprogrammed Appropriations, arguing that the mechanism may be vulnerable to misuse and could potentially violate constitutional safeguards on public spending. At the center of the debate is whether Congress’ power of the purse has constitutional limits and how far the judiciary may go in reviewing legislative budget decisions.
Representing the government, Solicitor General Darlene Marie Berberabe defended the legality of Unprogrammed Appropriations, arguing that the mechanism is not inherently unconstitutional nor designed to facilitate corruption.
“Not inherently a tool for corruption,” Berberabe told the Court, emphasizing that the practice has existed in Philippine national budgets since 1989.
She cited previous Supreme Court rulings, including Belgica v. Ochoa and Araullo v. Aquino, which recognized the existence of Unprogrammed Appropriations within the government’s budgeting framework.
Berberabe acknowledged public criticism surrounding the 2024 national budget but stressed that both Congress and the Executive branch have already introduced reforms. These include reducing the size of Unprogrammed Appropriations and narrowing their allowable uses in the proposed 2026 national budget.
“We all know as citizens of this country that many have been angered by what happened with the 2024 budget,” she said. However, she maintained that the possibility of abuse does not automatically make a government mechanism unconstitutional.
According to the Solicitor General, the Court should determine whether there is a clear constitutional violation or grave abuse of discretion, noting that laws are presumed constitutional unless proven otherwise beyond reasonable doubt.
Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda repeatedly pressed government lawyers on the extent of judicial intervention in budget matters. He questioned whether the Supreme Court should strike down Unprogrammed Appropriations altogether or instead establish constitutional guardrails while allowing Congress to continue refining the process.
Berberabe responded that the Court may clarify constitutional boundaries but should give the political branches sufficient room to implement reforms and modernize budget procedures. She pointed to ongoing legislative efforts in both chambers aimed at improving transparency, accountability, and efficiency in the budget process.
The Supreme Court’s latest directive marks one of the most significant judicial examinations of congressional budget-making in recent years.
With questions now centered on how hundreds of billions of pesos were inserted, reduced, or reallocated during bicameral deliberations, the Court’s eventual ruling could have far-reaching implications for transparency, legislative accountability, and the constitutional limits of Congress’ power over public funds.
As the proceedings continue, public attention remains focused on whether lawmakers can fully account for the budget adjustments and whether reforms will be enough to restore public confidence in the country’s appropriations process.
Drilon, Abad, and Salceda Clash on Unprogrammed Appropriations as Supreme Court Weighs Constitutionality of Budget Mechanism
Former government officials and lawmakers presented sharply contrasting views before the Supreme Court as the High Tribunal continued deliberations on the constitutionality of Unprogrammed Appropriations (UA), a long-standing budget mechanism that has become the focus of intense public and legal scrutiny.
During oral arguments, former Senate President Franklin Drilon, former Budget Secretary Florencio Abad, and former Albay Representative Joey Salceda offered differing perspectives on whether Unprogrammed Appropriations remain a necessary fiscal tool or have evolved into a mechanism that blurs constitutional boundaries between Congress and the Executive branch.
The discussions form part of the Supreme Court’s ongoing examination of consolidated petitions challenging provisions of the 2024 and 2025 General Appropriations Acts, particularly those governing billions of pesos in standby appropriations that may be activated once specific funding sources become available.
Appearing before the Court as an amicus curiae or “friend of the court,” former Senate President Franklin Drilon defended Congress’ constitutional authority to include Unprogrammed Appropriations in the national budget.
According to Drilon, the authority to set aside standby appropriations is inherently linked to Congress’ power of the purse and its constitutional mandate to appropriate public funds.
“The power to include unprogrammed appropriations is part of the inherent power of the legislature to appropriate funds,” Drilon told the Court.
However, while affirming Congress’ authority, Drilon expressed reservations about the continued necessity of the mechanism. He argued that the President already possesses extensive fiscal powers that could achieve the same objectives without relying heavily on Unprogrammed Appropriations.
Among these powers are the President’s authority to veto budget items, withhold fund releases, and request supplemental appropriations from Congress when additional government spending becomes necessary.
“What you intend to achieve through the mechanism of unprogrammed appropriations can be achieved anyway, even without the items there,” Drilon said.
Rather than asking the Court to invalidate the mechanism outright, Drilon urged the justices to allow Congress the opportunity to introduce self-corrective reforms that would strengthen transparency and accountability while preserving legislative authority over appropriations.
Former Budget Secretary Florencio Abad took a more critical stance, warning that the practical implementation of Unprogrammed Appropriations may undermine Congress’ exclusive constitutional authority over government spending.
Abad explained that while Congress authorizes the projects included under Unprogrammed Appropriations, actual decisions on which projects eventually receive funding are often made by the Executive branch during budget execution.
According to him, government revenues and budget surpluses are rarely sufficient to finance all approved unprogrammed projects. As a result, executive officials are left to determine which projects move forward and how much funding each receives. “That power is exercised not by Congress, which has exclusive jurisdiction to do that, but by the Executive,” Abad said.
He described the arrangement as creating institutional confusion and potentially weakening the constitutional principle that only Congress has the authority to appropriate public funds.
Abad urged the Supreme Court to favor the Constitution’s special appropriations mechanism instead of relying on Unprogrammed Appropriations.
He argued that the framers of the 1987 Constitution did not envision the current UA framework and that its widespread use has contributed to massive reallocations within the national budget in recent years.
To illustrate the scale of the practice, Abad cited government budget reprogramming amounting to approximately P395.5 billion in 2023, P564 billion in 2024, and P487 billion in 2025.
For critics, these figures demonstrate how budgetary decisions originally made by Congress can later be substantially altered during implementation, raising concerns about accountability and legislative oversight.
Offering a contrasting view, former Albay Representative Joey Salceda strongly defended the need for standby spending authority, emphasizing the Philippines’ vulnerability to natural disasters and unforeseen emergencies.
Salceda argued that the country regularly faces typhoons, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, public health crises, and other calamities that require immediate government intervention.
He warned that relying solely on supplemental appropriations could delay critical disaster response efforts because the legislative process often takes weeks or months to complete.
According to Salceda, contingent funds currently available in the national budget are often insufficient to address large-scale emergencies. He noted that supplemental budgets take an average of 62 days to pass through Congress, a delay that could significantly hamper government response during major disasters.
“The size and the time element” justify maintaining standby appropriations, Salceda told the Court. He pointed to historic disasters such as Tropical Storm Ondoy, Typhoon Pepeng, and the COVID-19 pandemic as examples of crises that required immediate and substantial government funding.
For Salceda, eliminating or severely restricting Unprogrammed Appropriations could leave the government with fewer tools to respond quickly when emergencies strike. The Supreme Court’s review of Unprogrammed Appropriations has become one of the most closely watched constitutional cases involving public finance in recent years.
At the heart of the debate is a fundamental question: How should the government balance fiscal flexibility during emergencies with constitutional safeguards designed to ensure transparency, accountability, and congressional control over public funds?
Supporters argue that Unprogrammed Appropriations provide a practical mechanism for responding to unexpected needs without waiting for lengthy legislative action. Critics, however, contend that the system creates opportunities for executive discretion that may dilute Congress’ exclusive power over appropriations.
As oral arguments continue, the Court’s eventual ruling could reshape how future national budgets are crafted, funded, and implemented. The decision is expected to have significant implications not only for Congress and the Executive branch but also for the broader principles governing public spending and constitutional accountability in the Philippines.
With billions of pesos and the boundaries of governmental power at stake, the outcome of the case may ultimately define the future of budget governance in the country.