Budget ‘urgency’ powers could weaken Congress

By Chloe Mari A. Hufana and Adrian H. Halili, Reporters

ROUTINE use of presidential “urgent” certifications in the budget process risks weakening Congress’ institutional power and turning it into a “concurring office” rather than a co-equal branch, analysts said, as lawmakers rush to finish the record-high 2026 national budget.

The urgency label, which lets the Senate and House skip the constitutional rule requiring bills to pass readings on separate days, has become a powerful tool for compressing debate, rushing bicameral talks and shielding late insertions from scrutiny, they added.

“If we treat ‘urgent’ certifications as routine for every General Appropriations Act, five to 10 years from now, Congress will look more like a concurring office than a co-equal branch,” Ederson DT. Tapia, a political science professor at the University of Makati, said in a Facebook Messenger chat.

Congress is finalizing the 2026 spending plan, which President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. wants enacted by Dec. 29. The bicameral conference committee meets from Dec. 11 to 13, with leaders targeting to approve its report by Dec. 16.

The pressure reflects rising concerns about Executive influence over the process, especially after the palace urged lawmakers to speed up deliberations to avoid a reenacted budget.

The annual budget is a key check on presidential power, shaping the flow of public funds and determining which projects move to implementation.

Past practice shows how broad the urgency power has become. Mr. Marcos issued urgent certifications for both the 2024 and 2025 budgets, citing the need for continuous government operations. He has not yet done so for next year’s plan.

Mr. Tapia said presidents could simply time such certifications to force approval of pork-laden items, turning transparency into an option instead of a requirement. “Once this hardens into practice, it will be very difficult to reverse,” he said.

Gian Paolo S. Ines, founding chairman of San Beda University’s political science department, said overuse of urgent certifications could undermine constitutional checks and “gives rise to accountability and impeachment issues under any administration.”

He added that a legal challenge remains possible, especially with heightened scrutiny over this year’s budget after the flood control controversy.

“All stakeholders in the legislative process may want to strictly abide by constitutional parameters and avoid any form of circumvention,” he said via Viber. “The Constitution or any law should never be bent.”

Mr. Tapia said lawmakers should use Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen’s recent opinion as a “practical checklist.” That includes observing the three-reading rule, avoiding same-day bicameral approval and plenary ratification and releasing real-time disclosures of all bicameral changes — including which legislators pushed infrastructure items.

Both analysts said Congress should also require any future urgent certification to undergo explicit constitutional review, with written justifications released publicly.

“If Congress can show that it disciplined its own process, the next budget will not only be more defensible before the courts,” Mr. Tapia said. “It will also be more legitimate in the eyes of citizens, who are already skeptical because of the flood control controversy.”

The unfolding public works scandal has exposed weaknesses in fiscal oversight, reinforcing long-standing questions about whether the budget process still acts as a meaningful check on executive power.

Meanwhile, greater transparency in the country’s budget process might not guarantee stronger public demand for accountability, analysts said, citing the country’s strong patronage-driven politics.

Anthony Lawrence A. Borja, an associate political science professor at De La Salle University, said transparency carries limited weight in a political culture where clientelist habits often dull public outrage.

“What is more important is to increase the demand for accountability among ordinary citizens,” he said in a Messenger chat, noting that increased transparency would only lead to better access and exposure to information.

“It is a different issue whether that information will matter to citizens who have tribal or clientelist tendencies that push them to ignore, dismiss or excuse the faults of their leaders,” he added.

Adolfo Jose A. Montesa, an adviser for the People’s Budget Coalition, said Congress could benefit from wider public participation in the budget process.

“The House and Senate can always benefit from more eyes and minds, especially from civil society, academe and media, who are trained to spot red flags,” he said via Messenger. He added that the public could help verify whether budget items actually meet people’s needs.

Mr. Borja said delays in transparency reforms could be used as political ammunition by the administration’s critics. “Will it affect ordinary voters? That will depend on how their leaders shape the narrative.”

Mr. Montesa said Congress’ transparency efforts might also be used to conceal insertions or existing red flags. “If the bicam doesn’t have genuine participatory measures, then we risk using band-aids on the deeper illness of our patronage-driven budget system,” he said.

He added that public outrage over the 2025 budget could have been avoided if citizens had been allowed real participation earlier.

Public scrutiny has intensified after fresh insertions were uncovered in the 2025 spending plan, prompting calls for stronger oversight.

These demands have pushed the Senate to order all 2026 budget documents — including transcripts, hearings and briefings — to be posted online. Malacañang also said bicameral conference committee meetings would be livestreamed.

“Participation goes beyond transparency,” Mr. Montesa said. “A verbal promise to livestream is not as meaningful as a formal resolution opening the bicam to the public.”