1 week ago
6
Roel Pareño - The Philippine Star
March 8, 2025 | 12:00am
MANILA, Philippines — A congressman in Zamboanga City has accused the administration of weaponizing the 2025 General Appropriations Act (GAA) against political opponents, saying that a P1-billion allocation for nationally funded infrastructure projects was removed from his district due to his decision to run against a close ally of the House leadership.
First District Rep. Khymer Adan Olaso claimed that the removal of these projects has deprived thousands of his constituents of essential government services, effectively punishing his bid for the mayoral race.
The funding was originally included in the proposed 2025 budget of the Department of Public Works and Highways District Engineering Office 2 under the National Expenditure Program approved by President Marcos.
However, Olaso stated that all 26 infrastructure projects earmarked for his district were subsequently removed from the final version of the 2025 GAA following his filing of candidacy last October against Second District Rep. and House majority leader Manuel Jose Dalipe.
Among the projects scrapped were flood control structures and road-widening initiatives aimed at improving farm access and boosting eco-tourism.
“As much as I want to defend the funding that was included under the national expenditure program during the plenary I can not because I would not be given the chance by the majority leader,” Olaso said at a briefing Thursday.
Olaso claimed that Speaker Martin Romualdez had urged him not to pursue his mayoral bid and to allow Dalipe to run unchallenged.
“When I finally decided to run as mayoral candidate, all projects that were intended for my district were stripped from the national government program. This act did not only hijack the development of my district and the city but deprived the thousands of residents under my district and the people of the city as a whole,” he said.
Olaso also alleged that beyond the infrastructure projects, financial assistance funneled through his congressional office was also withdrawn, preventing his constituents from receiving aid and placing him in a vulnerable position politically.
“My opponent’s camp has been saying that I will have zero project and zero budget. I believed it was their handiwork to deprive the people of the needed government programs,” he said.
‘Junk petition’
Meanwhile, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) has urged the Supreme Court (SC) to dismiss “for utter lack of merit” the petition questioning the constitutionality of the GAA for 2025, which contains the government’s spending plan for this year.
In an 89-page comment, Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra argued that the petition filed by senatorial candidate and former executive secretary Vic Rodriguez, among others, was rife with “fatal procedural defects” and seemed designed to halt the implementation of the GAA.
“The petition before this Honorable Court does not represent a genuine concern for constitutional integrity but appears to be an attempt to merely impede the implementation of a law that is vital to the nation’s progress and the well-being of its people,” the comment read.
Representing government officials in the petition, including Speaker Romualdez, Senate President Francis Escudero and Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin, the OSG emphasized that the petition’s claims were unfounded.
The petition claims that the GAA is unconstitutional for failing to allocate mandatory funding for Philippine Health Insurance Corp., unlawfully increasing appropriations beyond the President’s recommendations and allocating the highest budget to infrastructure over education.
It also alleges irregularities and blank items in the bicameral conference committee report.
In response, the OSG countered that the GAA does not violate the 1987 Constitution, specifically regarding provisions in the Universal Health Care Act concerning PhilHealth’s zero subsidy.
It clarified that Congress is not mandated to appropriate funds for PhilHealth every fiscal year, citing that such appropriations are conditional on Congress’ determination of necessity.
The OSG also refuted the petitioners’ claim that the lack of PhilHealth funding violated their right to health, arguing that health promotion can still be achieved through other government programs and projects.
“In other words, the absence of an appropriation in the 2025 GAA does not equate to a withdrawal of government support for health care,” it said.
Regarding the petitioners’ allegations of blank items in the bicameral conference committee report, the OSG argued that the enrolled bill – not the committee report – is “definitive and binding.”
It clarified that the final amounts to be allocated to the agencies were known to the conference committee, with only the final ministerial computation left to complete.
The OSG also dismissed the petitioners’ claim of a blatant constitutional violation as baseless and unsupported by legal citation.
The petitioners are candidate Rodriguez, Davao City 3rd District Rep. Isidro Ungab, and others including Rogelio Mendoza, Benito Ching Jr., Redemberto Villanueva, Roseller dela Peña, Santos Catubay and Dominic Solis. — Daphne Galvez
