By GMA News
+
Make this your preferred source to get more updates from this publisher on Google.
Senator Panfilo “Ping” Lacson on Wednesday said the Supreme Court’s ruling declaring provisions of the 2024 and 2025 national budgets unconstitutional came at an opportune time as the Senate scrutinizes the House version of the proposed 2027 national budget.
Lacson said the decision underscored the constitutional limits on Congress’ power to increase appropriations recommended by the executive branch in the National Expenditure Program (NEP).
“One good thing about the Supreme Court ruling is its timing. It couldn’t have come at a better time when the House version of the 2027 General Appropriations Bill is undergoing scrutiny by the Senate,” Lacson said in a statement.
He clarified that he was not a senator when Congress passed the 2024 and 2025 General Appropriations Acts.
Lacson earlier warned that the Senate’s review of the proposed 2027 budget could lead to the restoration of “hundreds of billions” of pesos in cuts and realignments made by the House of Representatives, including changes to funding for foreign-assisted projects and additional allocations for flood control.
He also said the Supreme Court ruling placed the 2024 and 2025 budgets among the worst in the country’s history, comparing them with the 2013 national budget provisions involving the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), which the high court also declared unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court, in a 121-page decision, struck down certain provisions of the 2024 and 2025 national budgets, as well as key unprogrammed appropriations in the 2026 budget.
The court ruled that Congress committed grave abuse of discretion when it increased the executive branch’s proposed unprogrammed appropriations from P281.9 billion under the NEP to P731.4 billion in the enacted 2024 budget.
It said Congress is constitutionally prohibited from increasing the president’s total recommended appropriations under the Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing, which covers both programmed and unprogrammed appropriations.
Lacson said unspent funds covered by the decision might no longer be disbursed, while expenditures already made might not automatically be invalidated.
“As far as I know, the possible consequences are — those that remain unspent may not be disbursed anymore; those already spent may not be invalidated,” he said.
Salceda
Former Albay lawmaker Joey Salceda welcomed the ruling on the Unprogrammed Appropriations, "particularly its recognition that unprogrammed appropriations are not inherently unconstitutional, but are a legitimate instrument of fiscal management subject to constitutional limits and safeguards."
"The ruling offers an opportunity to move beyond recurring disputes over the national budget and establish a more coherent, transparent, and constitutionally sound budget system," he said.
"The President, who decisively exposed the most glaring abuses of the system, is now in a position to lead that reform, working with Congress to ensure that the flexibility government needs is matched by the accountability the Constitution demands," he added. —LDF, GMA News