VICE President Sara Duterte has called on President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. to explain why he signed the 2024 and 2025 national budgets and the 2026 budget provisions that the Supreme Court (SC) declared unconstitutional.
In a statement on Wednesday, October 21, 2026, Duterte said the ruling affirmed her earlier warning that the bicameral conference committee, or Bicam, had failed to properly scrutinize and deliberate on changes to the national budget.
“My warning in 2024 was correct, as confirmed by the Supreme Court decision. The Bicameral Conference Committee, or Bicam, is no longer doing its job. Instead of scrutinizing and deliberating, it has become a mere rubber stamp, simply following Malacañang’s wishes regarding the national budget,” Duterte said.
Duterte said Marcos must explain why he approved a budget that differed from his administration’s proposed National Expenditure Program (NEP).
“He must explain why he signed a budget that did not correspond to the proposal of his own administration,” Duterte said.
She also accused government officials of using public funds to advance political and personal interests.
“The national budget is the people’s money, not a tool for political maneuvering or the personal interests of government officials,” the Vice President said.
“Now, it is time for President Marcos and members of Congress who violated the law and indulged themselves in public funds that should have been used to improve the lives of Filipinos to be held accountable to the people,” she added.
SC ruling
The Supreme Court declared the 2024 General Appropriations Act (GAA) unconstitutional because Congress increased unprogrammed appropriations by P449.5 billion, resulting in an increase in the President’s total recommended appropriations.
The Court also declared the 2025 GAA unconstitutional after Congress increased the Department of Public Works and Highways’ Special Road Fund by P17.99 billion, likewise raising the total appropriations beyond the President’s recommendation.
For the 2026 GAA, the Court struck down Special Provisions 1(a) and (b) of Chapter XLIII, which allowed the release of unprogrammed appropriations under conditions the justices found inconsistent with constitutional safeguards.
The SC clarified that unprogrammed appropriations are not inherently unconstitutional. However, their release must be subject to stricter safeguards to prevent excessive government spending and ensure transparency and accountability in the use of public funds.
The Court permanently prohibited the Senate, House of Representatives, Office of the Executive Secretary and Department of Budget and Management from implementing the invalidated provisions of the 2026 GAA.
For the 2024 and 2025 budgets, the Court applied the doctrine of operative fact to protect irreversible programs and projects whose beneficiaries acted in good faith. However, it clarified that the doctrine does not automatically shield officials involved in the unconstitutional appropriations from possible civil, criminal or administrative liability.
Malacañang has said it will ask the Supreme Court to reconsider the ruling, maintaining that the Marcos administration followed existing laws and procedures. /TPM