THE Supreme Court (SC) struck down portions of the 2024, 2025 and 2026 General Appropriations Acts (GAA), ruling that Congress exceeded constitutional limits when it increased unprogrammed appropriations and other budget items beyond the amounts proposed by the President.
“The SC ruled that unprogrammed appropriations are not unconstitutional per se,” the tribunal said in a statement on Tuesday, citing the decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen. “However, this budgetary item needs clear limits and safeguards to preserve fiscal discipline, transparency and accountability.”
The tribunal declared Republic Act (RA) No. 11975, or the 2024 GAA, unconstitutional after Congress increased unprogrammed appropriations by P449.5 billion, resulting in an increase in the President’s total recommended appropriations.
The SC also declared unconstitutional RA No. 12116, or the 2025 GAA, after Congress increased the Department of Public Works and Highways’ Special Road Fund by P17.99 billion, which likewise raised total appropriations beyond the President’s proposed budget.
The ruling granted petitions filed by former Albay Rep. Edcel C. Lagman and others, former Senator Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III and others, and the Filipinos for Peace, Justice and Progress Movement, Inc.
The court separately struck down Special Provisions 1(a) and 1(b), Chapter XLIII of the 2026 GAA, which govern the release of unprogrammed appropriations.
It said the provisions allowed the release of funds based on new or excess revenues without regard to whether overall government revenue targets had been exceeded, weakening fiscal discipline and departing from the constitutional framework governing public spending.
The high court ruled that the constitutional ceiling on appropriations applies to both programmed and unprogrammed appropriations.
It added that unprogrammed appropriations remain valid only if they contain no lump-sum allocations, include clear spending priorities, remain consistent with the national fiscal program and are supported by clear standards on the use of additional revenues.
The tribunal also flagged the item Strengthening Assistance for Government Infrastructure and Social Programs under the 2024 and 2025 budgets as a prohibited lump-sum appropriation because it gave the Executive broad authority to identify projects after the enactment of the budget.
The court said Congress created “artificial fiscal space” in the 2024 budget by transferring programs and projects from programmed to unprogrammed appropriations and increasing allocations for certain standby funds. The changes paved the way for higher allocations for public works projects and social assistance programs.
The court also rebuked the bicameral conference committee, saying its authority is limited to reconciling disagreements between House and Senate versions of a bill.
It noted the absence of records explaining budget increases and reductions and said the committee had failed to document changes as required under congressional rules.
The court permanently barred the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Office of the Executive Secretary and the Department of Budget and Management from implementing the voided provisions of the 2026 budget law.
For the 2024 and 2025 budgets, however, the tribunal applied the doctrine of operative fact, allowing completed and irreversible government programs undertaken in good faith to remain valid.
The SC clarified that the doctrine does not automatically shield the authors, proponents or implementers of the questioned provisions from criminal, civil or administrative liability unless the proper tribunals determine that they acted in good faith. — Norman P. Aquino and Erika Mae P. Sinaking