MALACAÑANG has directed the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to seek reconsideration of the Supreme Court (SC) ruling declaring the 2024 and 2025 national budget laws unconstitutional and striking down key provisions of the 2026 General Appropriations Act (GAA).
Palace Press Officer Undersecretary Claire Castro said on Wednesday, October 21, 2026, that the Marcos administration “respectfully disagrees” with certain portions of the high court’s decision.
“We respectfully ask the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision,” Castro said in Tagalog.
“The condition set by the Supreme Court requiring total revenue collections to exceed the overall revenue target before unprogrammed appropriations can be used is, in our view, a clear change to the conditions established by Congress, the branch of government constitutionally mandated to formulate the annual national budget,” Castro added.
Castro maintained that the administration of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. merely followed existing laws and budget procedures, arguing that no one should be held criminally or administratively accountable for complying with the rules in force at the time.
“So, we see no basis for holding the President accountable if he was merely complying with the law,” she added.
SC ruling
In its decision, the SC declared the 2024 GAA unconstitutional after Congress increased unprogrammed appropriations by P449.5 billion, raising the allocation from the President’s proposed P281.9 billion to P731.4 billion.
The court ruled that the increase violated the constitutional limit prohibiting Congress from raising the total appropriations recommended by the President. The limit covers both programmed and unprogrammed appropriations.
The SC also declared the 2025 GAA unconstitutional because Congress increased the Department of Public Works and Highways’ Special Road Fund by about P17.99 billion, raising the President’s total recommended appropriations.
It also found that a P12.75-billion increase in the Special Accounts in the General Fund of certain government agencies violated the Administrative Code provision prohibiting increases in amounts covered by special provisions beyond those proposed by the President.
For the 2026 GAA, the court struck down Special Provisions 1(a) and (b) of Chapter XLIII, which allowed the release of unprogrammed appropriations based on excess collections from individual non-tax revenue sources or new revenue streams.
The court permanently prohibited the Senate, House of Representatives, Office of the Executive Secretary and Department of Budget and Management from implementing these invalidated provisions.
The SC clarified that unprogrammed appropriations are not inherently unconstitutional. However, their release must comply with constitutional limits and safeguards, including the requirement that aggregate government revenue collections exceed the overall revenue target.
The court also invalidated the lump-sum appropriation for the Strengthening Assistance for Government Infrastructure and Social Programs (SAGIP) under the 2024 and 2025 budgets which it said gave the Executive excessive discretion to identify projects and allocate funds after the budget had been enacted, weakening transparency and legislative oversight.
The bicameral conference committee, which reconciles the House and Senate versions of the national budget, was also scrutinized by the SC over adjustments that increased allocations beyond the President’s recommendations.
Liability of officials
The SC applied the doctrine of operative fact to protect irreversible programs and projects under the 2024 and 2025 budgets whose beneficiaries acted in good faith.
The doctrine recognizes that the effects of an invalidated government action may, under certain circumstances, remain valid to prevent injustice to those who relied on it in good faith.
However, the court clarified that this protection does not automatically shield the authors, proponents and implementers of the unconstitutional appropriations from criminal, civil or administrative liability. Their liability will depend on the findings of the proper tribunals./ TPM