SC Declares 2024, 2025 Budgets Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court (SC) has declared as unconstitutional the national budgets for 2024 and 2025, particularly the unprogrammed appropriations (UA) that left the outlays “severely distorted.”

Also declared unconstitutional were the UA provisions in the current budget program. The UA has been described as the new pork barrel.

The high tribunal cited in particular the spike in UA in the General Appropriations Act (GAA) for 2024 by P449.5 billion, as well as the increase in the Special Road Fund by P17.99 billion in the 2025 GAA, which both “resulted in an increase in the president’s total recommended appropriations,” according to the SC statement released on Tuesday, Oct. 20.

The 121-page SC decision was handed down on Oct. 7.

The P449.5-billion increase in UA was “made by the bicameral conference committee through transfers of programs, activities and projects from programmed to unprogrammed and significant increases in the allocation for SAGIP and Support to Foreign Assisted Projects,” the court said, referring to Strengthening Assistance for Government Infrastructure and Social Programs (SAGIP).

While the UA per se is not unconstitutional, the SC said it becomes “constitutionally infirm when they lack sufficient standards, effectively granting the Executive unchecked spending authority that weakens fiscal discipline and undermines funding for programmed projects when estimated government revenues are not realized.”

The SC said Congress’ action on the appropriations program created “artificial fiscal space in the programmed appropriations” and “paved the way for increases in allocations” for specific programs of certain executive agencies.

The agencies that benefited the most from the said increases were the “DPWH basic infrastructure programs (BIP), Sustainable Infrastructure Projects Alleviating Gap (SIPAG), DOH’s medical assistance to indigents, DSWD’s Ayuda sa Kapos ang Kita Program (AKAP) and DOLE’s Tulong Panghanapbuhay sa Ating Disadvantaged or Displaced Workers Program (TUPAD).”

Prohibited lump sum

The SC added the SAGIP – which was present in UA provisions of both 2024 and 2025 GAA – was “a prohibited lump sum appropriation because it gives the Executive post-enactment identification/allocative powers, which are constitutionally vested in Congress.”

It said SAGIP “became the covert repository of lump sum allocations for DPWH infrastructure like flood control projects.”

Aside from the P17.99 billion rise in the Special Road Fund in the 2025 GAA, the high court also pronounced as illegal the P12.75-billion increase in certain agencies’ Special Accounts in the General Fund (SAGF) under the 2025 GAA. The increase was a violation of a provision in the Administrative Code that “prohibits increasing amounts in special provisions beyond those proposed by the president.”

Meanwhile, the SC also declared as unconstitutional some UA provisions in the 2026 GAA, particularly Special Provisions 1 (a) and (b), Chapter XLIII, as they were “overly broad, lacked prioritization standards and partly functioned as prohibited lump sum appropriations.”

“Without sufficient standards, the Special Provisions (1) (a) and (b) also give the president the discretion to choose which among the purposes under (UA) will be funded, which will not and what amount will be spent,” the SC said.

“Concomitantly, it gives the president the power to release or withhold funds. These are allocative judgments which occur during budget execution; hence, unconstitutional,” the SC said.

The SC also emphasized that “unprogrammed funds, as standby appropriations, must be released only when there are revenues in excess of the total revenue targets stated in the BESF (Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Funding).”

As a consequence, the high tribunal “permanently prohibited the Senate, House of Representatives, Office of the Executive Secretary and the Department of Budget and Management acting secretary from implementing Special Provision 1(a) and (b), Chapter XLIII of the 2026 GAA.”

The high court also maintained that UA provisions “should be within the national fiscal program established in the budget and consistent with its nature as a narrow contingent appropriation.”

In addition, the high court said the conditions for the use of new income, as well as additional earnings of the government from non-tax revenue sources, should be clearly differentiated between programmed and unprogrammed expenditures.

The SC also reminded the bicameral conference committee to be “transparent and accountable” in its proceedings, and since “there were no records of the committee’s discussions, its report did not explain the increases and decreases in budget items in violation of the Rules of the House and the Senate, neither did the committee submit any documents supporting the changes in the budget.”

Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen penned the decision, after six oral arguments held this year based on four consolidated petitions by incumbent and former lawmakers and civil society groups.