The Supreme Court draws new lines around the power of the purse
The Supreme Court’s latest ruling on Unprogrammed Appropriations (UA) is an important step toward restoring discipline and accountability in the national budget. It does not abolish UA. But it makes clear that this budgetary device cannot be used to circumvent constitutional limits or give the Executive virtually unrestricted discretion over public spending.
To understand why the decision matters, we must first understand how the national budget is supposed to work.
Every year, the President submits a proposed budget to Congress. This is more than a list of projects and agency requests. It is a fiscal plan: what the government intends to spend, how much it expects to collect, and how it proposes to finance its priorities. Congress can scrutinize the proposal, amend it within constitutional limits, and enact the General Appropriations Act (GAA).
Unprogrammed Appropriations are meant to serve a limited purpose. They provide standby authority to fund certain priority programs when specified conditions arise — for example, when additional revenues are collected or foreign-assisted project loans are approved. They are not supposed to be a blank check for spending decisions that can be made later, without sufficiently clear rules.
The danger arises when large amounts are moved into UA during the final stages of budget legislation. The appearance may be that the total budget has not changed significantly, or that funds have simply been rearranged. But the consequences can be substantial. Money that was originally assigned to specific programs may become dependent on future conditions before it can be released. This can change which projects are likely to receive funding and who ultimately decides which priorities move forward.
The 2024 budget illustrates the problem. The President’s proposed budget included about P282 billion in UA. By the time Congress enacted the GAA, the amount had risen to approximately P731.4 billion — an increase of about P449.5 billion. The Supreme Court ruled that this increase violated the constitutional restriction on Congress increasing the appropriations recommended by the President. The Court also struck down a P17.992-billion increase in the 2025 Special Road Fund over the President’s recommendation.
The importance of the ruling goes beyond these specific amounts. The Court made clear that the constitutional limit applies to the total of programmed and unprogrammed appropriations. Congress cannot avoid that limit simply by placing additional amounts under a different budget category.
The decision also draws boundaries around the use of UA. Contingent appropriations must remain within the national fiscal program and be governed by adequate standards for determining when funds may be released. The government must assess its overall fiscal position, rather than treating an increase in one revenue source as automatic permission to spend more. The Court likewise invalidated certain provisions of the 2026 GAA that allowed releases based on specified excess non-tax collections and new revenue sources not included in the Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing.
These safeguards address a deeper institutional concern. If the budget leaves major spending decisions to be made during implementation, the Executive may end up exercising choices that should have been settled through the legislative process. Congress’s power of the purse is not simply the power to approve a total amount of public spending. It is also the responsibility to determine, transparently and within constitutional limits, what that money is for and under what conditions it may be used.
The ruling should not be read as a finding that the entire budget process for 2023, 2024, and 2025 was unconstitutional, much less as a judicial finding of criminal plunder. The Court ruled on specific constitutional questions and provisions. Criminal responsibility is a separate matter to be determined through the proper proceedings. Still, the decision sheds light on how substantial changes to appropriations can alter the practical control of public funds — and why the constitutional rules governing those changes matter.
The lesson is especially timely as Congress considers the proposed P7.2-trillion national budget for 2027. The House has approved its version on third and final reading, but the Senate must still deliberate on the House-approved bill and pass its own version on second and third readings. Only then will the two versions proceed to the Bicameral Conference Committee to reconcile their differences.
The experience of the 2023-2025 budgets shows why public scrutiny must continue through every stage. Substantial amendments were introduced during bicameral deliberations even after both chambers had approved their respective versions on third reading. The bicameral process is intended to reconcile conflicting provisions, but it can also become a point at which major changes to spending priorities and appropriations are made.
The Supreme Court’s ruling should serve as a guide as the 2027 budget moves forward: reconciliation must not become a means of evading constitutional limits or weakening accountability for major changes to the people’s budget. The public deserves to know not only what each chamber approved, but also what was changed in bicameral conference, who proposed those changes, where the money came from, and why the changes were necessary.
Ultimately, the power of the purse belongs to the people, exercised through a constitutional process. It must not be lost in the fine print of the budget — or in the stages that follow each chamber’s approval.
Florencio “Butch” B. Abad was formerly secretary of the Department of Budget and Management. Currently, he is professor of Praxis at the Ateneo School of Government and senior professional Lecturer at the Taňada-Diokno School of Law, DLSU-BGC.