Palace To Appeal SC Ruling On Budget

The Marcos administration will ask the Supreme Court (SC) to reconsider its ruling declaring as unconstitutional the national budgets for 2024 and 2025 due to a large increase in unprogrammed appropriations.

“We respectfully urge the Supreme Court to reassess its decision. The Office of the Solicitor General has been directed to file a motion for reconsideration,” Palace press officer Claire Castro said on Wednesday, Oct. 21.

Castro said while the high court did not declare unprogrammed appropriations (UAs) as unconstitutional, the conditions it set made it difficult for the government to use the funds.

“We respectfully disagree with some parts of the ruling of the high court. In our view, it maintained the mechanism on paper, but the setting of conditions that went beyond the conditions set by Congress since 2015 did not just make (the use of the funds) very difficult, it made the mechanism useless for the programs of the government,” Castro said at a media briefing.

The SC struck down as unconstitutional the 2024 national budget because of Congress’ increase of UAs by P449.5 billion, which led to a hike in the President’s total recommended outlay.

Last year’s national budget has also been declared unconstitutional because of the P17.99-billion hike in the special road fund made by the legislature, which raised Marcos’ total recommended appropriations.

The high court also ruled as unconstitutional some UA provisions in the 2026 national budget.

According to the ruling, pegging certain fiscal conditions to any new or excess revenue, without regard to whether the whole revenue target was exceeded, departs from the unprogrammed appropriations’ original feature as a deficit neutral mechanism and undermines fiscal discipline and the coherent fiscal program contemplated in the Constitution.

The SC also described the provisions as “overly broad, lacked prioritization standards and partly functioned as prohibited lump sum appropriations.”

Castro said the ruling’s condition that revenue collections should exceed the target before UAs can be used changed the conditions set by Congress as the branch of government tasked by the Constitution to pass the annual national budget.

She pointed out that since 2015, Congress has allowed the release of funds if the collection target is exceeded even if they come from a non-tax revenue source.

“The Marcos administration merely followed this rule,” Castro said, adding that the previous national budgets were in line with the Araullo versus Aquino ruling, the 2014 SC decision that declared acts under the executive branch’s Disbursement Acceleration Program unconstitutional.

‘No law violated’

Castro maintained that Marcos did not violate any provision of the Constitution, stressing that there is no criminal or administrative liability if the funds are used in good faith.

“This administration merely followed the processes stated under the law. So, we do not see any accountability on the part of the President,” she said.

Asked whether the administration would withhold the release of certain funds in this year’s budget because of the ruling, Castro pointed out that the court’s decision is not yet final.

SC: Marcos not at fault

However, the SC maintained that the President should not be faulted for “certifying as urgent” the controversial House bill due to the state of “public calamity or emergency.”

“The President did not commit grave abuse of discretion when he certified as urgent House Bill No. 8980,” according to the 121-page decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen dated Oct. 7.

The bill was signed into law as Republic Act No. 11975, which according to the ruling contained the P4.7512-trillion budget for 2024.

In their petition challenging the constitutionality of the 2024 budget, former Senate president Aquilino Pimentel III and former House speaker Pantaleon Alvarez argued that the bill being certified as urgent was “tainted with grave abuse of discretion.”

They said it did not follow the constitutional standard of three readings on separate days for congressional bills, and that there was no public calamity or emergency at the time to hasten its passage.

At a press conference on Wednesday, SC spokesperson Camille Ting said the decision – which received a 13-2 vote – was “not yet final and executory” and that the Office of the Solicitor General may file a motion for reconsideration within 15 days from notice. – With Ghio Ong