October 22, 2026 | 11:47am
The main building of the Philippine Supreme Court in Manila as taken on December 13, 2024.
Philstar.com / Martin Ramos
MANILA, Philippines — The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) said it will seek clarification and partial reconsideration from the Supreme Court regarding its ruling on the constitutionality of unprogrammed appropriations.
In a statement on Thursday, October 22, the OSG said that while it respects the High Court's ruling, it raised concerns over specific conditions imposed by the Court.
"The OSG agrees that safeguards are essential to ensure transparency, accountability, and fiscal discipline in the use of public funds," the OSG said.
"The complex challenge, however, lies in distinguishing the safeguards that are required by the Constitution from those whose formulation falls within the constitutionally provided powers of Congress and the Executive," it added.
The OSG said it will request the High Court to clarify and reconsider aspects of the ruling to ensure the prescribed safeguards do not inadvertently trample upon the budgetary discretion entrusted to the legislative and executive branches.
According to the OSG, the complexity of the case was underscored by the presence of twelve separate opinions issued alongside the main decision.
"The OSG will carefully consider these opinions in its further action," the OSG said.
The Supreme Court, in its ruling on October 7, declared unconstitutional provisions of the 2024, 2025, and 2026 General Appropriations Acts concerning unauthorized congressional increases in unprogrammed funds and specific special accounts.
The High Court emphasized that unprogrammed appropriations are not unconstitutional per se, as long as they comply with specific conditions.
While the Supreme Court affirmed the President's discretion to certify House Bill No. 8980 as urgent and upheld Congress's freedom to act on such certifications, it found that lawmakers violated Article VI, Section 25(1) of the Constitution by increasing the total proposed budget across both programmed and unprogrammed allocations.
Despite this constitutional violation, the Court applied the doctrine of operative fact, ensuring that irreversible programs under the 2024 and 2025 General Appropriations Acts carried out in good faith remain valid and intact for their beneficiaries.
Supreme Court justices filed separate opinions concurring with the final judgment while offering distinct legal views.
While they concurred that unprogrammed appropriations serve as a valid budgetary tool, their views diverged regarding the specific constitutional flaws identified, the scope of authority granted to the bicameral conference committee, and the practical consequences of striking down specific budget provisions.