Supreme Court asked to declare unprogrammed appropriations unconstitutional

MANILA, Philippines – Two lawmakers have asked the Supreme Court to strike down the unprogrammed appropriations (UA) in the 2026 national budget, arguing that the provision violates the Constitution and gives the executive branch excessive discretion over public funds.

Caloocan 2nd District Representative Edgar Erice and Mamayang Liberal Representative Leila de Lima on Thursday, January 8, filed a petition seeking the removal of the UA from the 2026 General Appropriations Act (GAA). The petition comes amid scrutiny of unprogrammed funds, which were previously used to fund anomalous flood control projects.

Unprogrammed appropriations are designed as a standby spending authority that may only be used once specific conditions are met, such as when government revenues exceed targets or when additional foreign grants and loans become available.

However, the petitioners argued that Congress overstepped constitutional limits by including what they described as “massive, unsupported” unprogrammed items in the 2026 budget.

“By inserting these massive, unsupported appropriations into the 2026 General Appropriations Act, Congress has effectively circumvented the constitutional ceiling and relinquished its duty of specific appropriation to the discretion of the Executive,” the petition says.

Erice and De Lima said unprogrammed appropriations lack guaranteed, identified, or presently available funding sources at the time the budget is enacted. 

Under the 2026 GAA, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. approved P150.9 billion for unprogrammed appropriations after vetoing seven of the 10 items. This is lower than the P249.9 billion under the 2026 National Expenditure Program submitted by the executive to the Congress.

Marcos said that the 2026 UA is at the “bare minimum” and the “lowest since 2019.”

Under the Marcos administration, UA has sharply increased. In the first approved budget of his term in 2023, the UA reached P807.16 billion, more than triple the P251.64 billion in 2022. The amount stood at P731.4 billion in 2024 and P531.7 billion in 2025.

The petitioners further asked the High Court to issue a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction to stop the release of the funds, warning that any disbursement would cause “irreversible” harm.

“The release of these funds will result in the irreversible disbursement of public funds, thereby rendering the Honorable Court’s eventual judgment ineffectual,” the petition read.

Named as respondents are Senate President Tito Sotto, House Speaker Faustino “Bojie” Dy, Executive Secretary Ralph Recto, Finance Secretary Frederick Go, and Department of Budget and Management (DBM) acting Secretary Rolando Toledo.

Toledo, however, maintained that UA is constitutional, citing a 2019 Supreme Court decision on Greco Belgica’s petition.

“The Court clarified that the Unprogrammed Appropriations are not a prohibited lump-sum fund, because they are accompanied by an annex that specifies the public purposes and corresponding amounts for which the funds may be used. As such, the UA complies with the constitutional requirement that appropriations must have a discernible purpose,” Toledo said in a statement.

Toledo argued that based on the Supreme Court’s decision, UA is a “legitimate budgeting mechanism that allows fiscal flexibility while preserving Congressional control over public funds.”

Former DBM secretary Butch Abad, however, believes UA is unconstitutional, saying it “unlawfully transfers to the executive the power to complete the act of appropriation” and “undermine[s] the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances.”

Like Erice and De Lima, Abad said that UA “subvert[s] the constitutionally mandated budget framework.” – Rappler.com