+
Make this your preferred source to get more updates from this publisher on Google.
The Supreme Court decision restricting the use of unprogrammed appropriations (UA) and prohibiting Congress from increasing budgets above the President's proposal has shut the door for abuse in spending public funds, House Senior Deputy Minority Leader Leila de Lima of Mamamayang Liberal (ML) party-list said Wednesday.
De Lima was referring to the Supreme Court (SC) decision declaring as illegal the 2024 and 2025 national budgets and provisions of 2026 budget on unprogrammed allocations due to congressional increases that went beyond the budget ceiling as proposed by the President.
"The Supreme Court's decision on Unprogrammed Appropriations (UA) is a significant win in our fight for transparency and accountability in spending the people's money. The Court ruled that the UA can have no lump sums and that new revenues should presumptively fund programmed expenditures. Where there is more than one purpose, Congress must establish sufficient standards in terms of prioritization for spending, and the UA must remain what it was always meant to be: a narrow contingent appropriation," she said in a statement.
The Supreme Court's decision partially granted the petition filed by De Lima and Caloocan 2nd District Representative Edgar Erice challenging the constitutionality of Chapter XLIII of the 2026 GAA, which authorized unprogrammed appropriations.
In the decision, the SC ruled that "Unprogrammed Appropriations are not unconstitutional per se," but stressed that these need "clear limits and safeguards to preserve fiscal discipline, transparency, and accountability."
De Lima said, "As a co-petitioner in one of the consolidated cases, we had hoped that the Court would abolish the UA entirely, as we believe that it is tantamount to undue delegation of legislative power to the Executive and that prudent budget does not need a standing reserve for discretion. Still, we thank the SC for setting clear constitutional limits on UA–a big step toward promoting fiscal discipline and pursuing a coherent fiscal program. UA was meant to be a standby, not a slush fund. The Court has put it back in its proper place."
De Lima then said the court ruling is a warning against those who will sneak in to misuse public funds.
The high bench also voided the 2024 budget because of a P449.5-billion increase in unprogrammed appropriations, while the 2025 GAA was struck down because of the additional P17.99 billion for the Special Road Fund of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).
Meanwhile, Senator Panfilo "Ping" Lacson on Wednesday said the Supreme Court ruling came at an opportune time as the Senate scrutinizes the House version of the proposed 2027 national budget. — VDV, GMA News