The Supreme Court (SC) will begin oral arguments on Tuesday, April 7, over four consolidated petitions questioning the constitutionality of unprogrammed funds and special accounts in the 2024, 2025, and 2026 national budgets.
The hearings, set at 9:30 a.m. in the SC’s full court session hall, were originally scheduled in Baguio City as part of the Court’s traditional summer sessions. However, the justices opted to hold the debates in Manila to cut fuel and transport costs. A second round of arguments is scheduled for April 21.
The petitions include:
- G.R. No. 271059 (Edcel Lagman et al. vs Congress of the Philippines et al.)
- G.R. No. 271347 (Koko Pimentel and Pantaleon Alvarez vs Lucas Bersamin and Amenah Pangandaman)
- G.R. No. E-02472 (Filipinos for Peace, Justice and Progress Movement Inc. vs House of Representatives et al.)
- G.R. No. E-04036 (Egay Erice and Leila de Lima vs Senate of the Philippines et al.)
Petitioners — composed of legislators, taxpayers, and civic groups — argue that Congress’ Bicameral Conference Committees unlawfully inflated the national budget across three years.
Incumbent and former lawmakers Edcel Lagman, Gabby Bordado, Mujiv Hataman, Koko Pimentel, and Pantaleon Alvarez are challenging the bicameral insertion of ₱449.5 billion in the 2024 General Appropriations Act (GAA).
The Filipinos for Peace, Justice and Progress Movement (FPJPM) assailed amendments to the 2025 GAA, citing the Department of Public Works and Highways’ Special Road Fund, which allegedly rose from ₱16.756 billion to ₱34.748 billion.
Meanwhile, Representatives Egay Erice and Leila de Lima are contesting the ₱150.9 billion unprogrammed appropriations in the 2026 GAA, arguing that such standby authority “inverts the constitutional architecture of budgeting” by authorizing expenditures in anticipation of speculative revenues.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the respondents, has asked the SC to dismiss the petitions. It defended the use of unprogrammed appropriations, stating:
“Unprogrammed appropriations are equally vital as programmed appropriations. However, the reality is that the government’s resources are finite; it is unable to guarantee and fund all its intended expenditures within a fiscal year.”
The OSG also opposed pleas for a temporary restraining order, warning that blocking unprogrammed funds would prevent the government from using additional revenues or grants to implement projects, calling such a move “highly impractical and uneconomical, nay wasteful.”