SC told unprogrammed funds erode control

PLAINTIFFS challenging unprogrammed appropriations told the Supreme Court (SC) that the budget mechanism allows billions of pesos to move outside constitutional guardrails, weakening fiscal discipline and diluting Congress’ control over public spending.

“If the unprogrammed appropriations are not blank checks, they are checks drawn against insufficient funds,” Vaupetroanji J. Peña, lawyer for the petitioners Reps. Edgar S. Erice and Leila M. de Lima, said during oral arguments on Tuesday.

Solicitor General Darlene Marie B. Berberabe defended the provisions, saying unprogrammed items represent priorities that the government could pursue only if specific fiscal conditions are met. She described them as aspirational programs whose funding depends on excess revenues or additional borrowing.

The petitions seek to nullify Section 43 of the 2024 General Appropriations Act and similar provisions in the 2025 and 2026 budgets. The plaintiffs argued the sections violate the Constitution by authorizing contingent spending without definite funding sources and by allowing Congress to approve amounts that exceed the President’s proposed budget.

They pointed to the scale of the increases as evidence of overreach. The Executive branch proposed P281.9 billion in unprogrammed funds in the 2024 National Expenditure Program, but the figure rose to P731.4 billion in the enacted budget, an increase of about P449.5 billion. The petitioners said the expansion sidestepped constitutional limits on legislative adjustments to the budget.

Counsel for former Senate President Aquilino L. Pimentel III and former Speaker Pantaleon D. Alvarez asked the court to halt releases under the challenged provisions, warning that once funds are disbursed, any constitutional violation would be difficult to undo. They argued Congress effectively ceded its power of the purse to the Executive by allowing releases to depend on future and uncertain certifications.

The Office of the Solicitor General countered that unprogrammed appropriations do not authorize automatic spending and have been part of the national budget framework for decades.

Ms. Berberabe said the mechanism allows the government to act quickly when revenue conditions permit, without reopening the budget process.

Economic experts invited as friends of the court focused on fiscal risks. Former Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Solita “Winnie” D. Monsod warned that unprogrammed appropriations have become a repository for lump‑sum insertions, likening the structure to a modern pork‑barrel system.

She said wide gaps between the Executive proposal and the enacted budget emerged in recent years and contribute to weaker fiscal outcomes.

Former Budget Secretary Benjamin E. Diokno highlighted execution costs, saying essential items such as right‑of‑way acquisitions for major rail projects were transferred to unprogrammed status, exposing them to long delays and higher expenses, including fees paid to foreign lenders.

Former Senate President Franklin M. Drilon said unprogrammed funds are not unconstitutional by design but criticized the low threshold used to trigger their release. He argued releases should hinge on overall revenue performance rather than excess from a single source.

During questioning, Senior Associate Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen pressed government lawyers on why priority items such as defense modernization, free tertiary education and government personnel benefits were placed in a standby fund.

The court ordered the government to submit a detailed list of special allotment release orders for unprogrammed items in 2024 and 2025 before oral arguments resume later this month. — Erika Mae P. Sinaking