CPBRD flags legal issues in UPLIFT Framework, urges legislative remedy

THE GOVERNMENT’S whole-of-government response to the war-driven oil crisis raises legal and constitutional questions, a congressional think tank said, noting these concerns may be addressed through legislation.

In a June discussion paper, the Congressional Policy and Budget Research Department (CPBRD) said the government’s Unified Package for Livelihoods, Industry, Food and Transport (UPLIFT) Framework appropriately recognizes that the oil shock is not confined in the energy sector as it fed into transport, food systems, electricity prices, inflation, employment, and household welfare.

Its interventions, such as the provision of fuel subsidies, cash assistance, transport support, food stabilization programs, and emergency employment measures, were aligned to the immediate needs of vulnerable sectors, the CPBRD said, though it found significant operational and institutional constraints to its implementation.

“The scale of assistance delivered under UPLIFT remains considerable smaller than the magnitude of affected populations,” it said, pointing to incomplete government registries, uneven administrative capacity, and weak last-mile delivery systems.

Its implementation also risks further straining the Philippines’ fiscal sustainability amid concerns about the adequacy of funds if the crisis persist beyond current assumptions.

UPLIFT, established through Executive Order (EO) No. 110, however derives its authority from the President’s constitutional power, which means the President will need congressional authorization should he deem it necessary to substantially expand the program or create new subsidy mechanisms beyond.

CPBRD also flagged a more complex legal concern, involving the emergency fuel procurement and supply stabilization, under UPLIFT.

EO No. 110 authorizes limited intervention through the Department of Energy and the Philippine National Oil Co. using the Malampaya Fund, with about P20 billion reported to have been allocated for emergency fuel procurement.

“While Presidential Decree No. 910 and RA No. 7638 provide legal basis for the use of Malampaya Fund for energy-related purposes, questions remain regarding whether direct fuel procurement and market stabilization fall squarely within the purposes authorized by law,” it said, citing Belgica v. Ochoa, which stated that public funds must be used strictly for purposes authorized by law.

The CPBRD warned these mechanisms raise constitutional concerns, which may be questioned in court.

“Executive measures that substantially alter market mechanisms or exceed delegated authority may be vulnerable to challenge as ultra vires acts,” it said, referring to acts executed beyond the powers.

On this note, the CPBRD recommended the pursuit of legislative authority, similar to the Bayanihan to Heal as One Act.

“If greater flexibility in the use of funds is required, a more legally secure approach would be to obtain express legislative authority,” it said, noting the proposed KALINGA (Komprehensibong Alalay sa Livelihood, Inflation, Negosyo and Goods Assistance) Act or House Bill No. 9305, addresses many of the legal and constitutional issues identified under EO No. 110. — PJB