“In the 2027 budget, it is the same people, the same modus.”
Kabataan Partylist Rep. Renee Co condemned Friday the similarities that she had observed between the proposed national budget for 2027 and the appropriations that were deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in past budgets.
She admitted that she was no longer surprised by the discrepancies, highlighting that such issues when it came to pork-allocations were expected from the current administration of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.
“It has been one decade since the pork barrel was banned but up to now the budget of the government is still filled with pork. Last year, there was the flood control scam. This year, unprogrammed appropriations,” Co explained.
“The people [are no longer] surprised [that] these are coming from the Marcos Jr. administration,” she added.
The ruling that the lawmaker was referencing was the Supreme Court decision released on 20 October which flagged billions of funding allocated within the 2024 and 2025 budgets.
The high court found that the P449.5-billion unprogrammed appropriations included the 2024 General Appropriations Act (GAA) as unconstitutional as it had illegally exceeded the constitutional ceiling set for the allocation.
As for the 2025 GAA, meanwhile, the Supreme Court voided the P17.99-billion increase inserted by Congress to the Special Road Fund of the Department of Public Works and Highways.
Amid questions on who should be liable for the findings, Co stressed that the public officials that should be primarily held liable were the implementers of the amounts–Marcos and his cabinet secretaries.
“They can not hide behind ‘good faith.’ There is no debate on who the implementers are–President Marcos Jr., [former] Executive Secretary [Adrian] Bersamin, former DBM Secretary [Amenah] Pangandaman, and [former] DPWH Secretary [Manuel] Bonoan,” she said.
Co further stated that the high court’s ruling affirmed her decision to vote no on the House of Representatives’ version of the 2027 budget, which she claimed had similar release triggers for unprogrammed appropriations and lumpsums.
The lawmaker stated that the fiscal proposal could also be deemed unconstitutional in the future if it is not amended to comply with the newly established guidelines of the Constitution.
“This decision is crucial. It strengthens the No vote of this representation in the approved 2027 budget. The stench of collusion between Congress and Malacañang to squander public funds is strong,” she said.
Palace to seek reconsideration of ruling
During a press briefing at Malacañang on Thursday, 22 October, Solicitor General Darlene Berberabe said that they would be seeking clarification and partial reconsideration of the high court’s decision on the previous budgets.
Berberabe likewise stated that they would question whether the ruling had been a “judicial overreach” as it supposedly imposed restrictions on the power vested on Congress and the Executive in structuring the budget.
“So, our Constitution has a structure. It has a rationale. We have three branches of government, each with its own responsibilities,” she said.
“What we would like to emphasize and request that they review is that there may be guardrails that should be left to the two branches, which are the political branches–meaning the Congress and the President, who were elected by the people,” she added.
Aside from wanting to understand the ruling's implications on the past budgets, the Office of the Solicitor General said that it had likewise instructed the Department of Budget and Management to identify which programs under the 2026 budget could be continued.
Berberabe also maintained that the President was not explicitly identified as the liable official in the unconstitutional amounts.
Stay informed
Get Daily Tribune in your inbox
Breaking news, opinion, and business coverage for readers in the Philippines and abroad.
Or open the newsletter page. Prefer chat? Join the Viber community.