Former Senate President Franklin M. Drilon has urged Congress to seek clarification on the Supreme Court’s ruling on unprogrammed appropriations, saying parts of the decision could encroach on lawmakers’ constitutional power over the national budget.
In a statement, Mr. Drilon said the Court correctly recognized that unprogrammed appropriations are not unconstitutional in themselves, but questioned provisions of the ruling that he said could allow the judiciary to prescribe fiscal conditions that should be determined by Congress.
“Congress determines appropriations and their lawful conditions. The Executive implements the budget within those conditions. Both functions remain subject to the Constitution,” he said.
Mr. Drilon, who served as amicus curiae in the proceedings, said Congress should establish safeguards against abuses of unprogrammed appropriations through legislation, leaving the Court to determine whether these comply with the Constitution.
The Supreme Court, in its Oct. 7 decision, ruled that unprogrammed appropriations must be subject to clear limits and safeguards to ensure fiscal discipline, transparency and accountability.
It declared unconstitutional the P449.5-billion increase in unprogrammed appropriations under the 2024 General Appropriations Act (GAA), which pushed total appropriations beyond the amount recommended by the President. It also voided the 2025 GAA over Congress’ P17.99-billion increase in the Department of Public Works and Highways’ Special Road Fund.
The Court likewise struck down provisions of the 2026 GAA that allowed the release of unprogrammed funds based on new or excess revenues without requiring total government revenues to exceed the target.
Mr. Drilon acknowledged that flaws or abuses in the funding mechanism may require correction, but said identifying a constitutional defect does not automatically authorize the Court to formulate budget guidelines that replace conditions expressly set by lawmakers.
Such intervention could raise concerns about judicial legislation and narrow Congress’ discretion in determining how public funds may be appropriated, he said.
Mr. Drilon also warned that replacing funding conditions enacted by Congress could restrict the Executive’s ability to implement the national budget under the framework approved by lawmakers.
He said clarification was necessary to establish the limits of judicial review and protect the budgetary powers of future Congresses and presidents.
“The concern therefore extends beyond one administration or one budget. It involves the scope of the budget powers available to future Congresses and Presidents,” he said.
Mr. Drilon also welcomed the timing of the decision as the government prepares the 2027 national budget.
“We look forward to seeing how the reforms will be reflected in the 2027 budget,” he said. — Kaizzer Angela Marie V. Manuba