2 months ago
34
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
Ghio Ong - The Philippine Star
April 8, 2026 | 12:00am
The Supreme Court (SC) held the first part of its oral arguments on petitions questioning the budget insertions, particularly unprogrammed appropriations (UA), in Manila yesterday.
BusinessWorld / File
MANILA, Philippines — Amid challenges raised over alleged insertions in the national budgets for 2024, 2025 and 2026, experts were divided on whether these additions go beyond what the Constitution prescribes.
The Supreme Court (SC) held the first part of its oral arguments on petitions questioning the budget insertions, particularly unprogrammed appropriations (UA), in Manila yesterday.
University of the Philippines economics professor Solita Collas-Monsod said that since 2022, Congress has used UA as “the place to hide lump sum appropriations,” particularly those approved by the bicameral conference committee.
She noted that approved unprogrammed funds have exceeded proposed unprogrammed funds since 2022.
Citing a study by the Congressional Policy and Budgeting Research Department (CPBRD), Monsod said the rapid expansion of UA, coupled with weak itemization, conditional funding triggers and post-enactment executive discretion, has transformed them into a budgetary instrument with significant implications for transparency, accountability and fiscal discipline.
The study also attributed UA to “higher-than-planned spending” by the government, resulting in its failure to meet its target for reducing the budget deficit and the debt-to-gross domestic product (GDP) ratio.
Meanwhile, former Department of Budget and Management (DBM) secretary Benjamin Diokno noted that there were five instances when UA approved by Congress exceeded those proposed by the president, three of which occurred in 2023, 2024 and 2025.
“This is not to argue that Congress may increase the unprogrammed appropriations as requested by the executive. This is only meant to reflect the monumental abuses done by Congress during the last three years – 2023, 2024 and 2025 national budgets,” he added.
Former budget secretary Florencio Abad warned that “recent practices,” particularly the alleged expansion of UA “beyond fiscal limits and treated as readily activatable… risk becoming not merely contingent spending authority but a mechanism for circumventing constitutional restraints.”
While UA has become “necessary for flexibility” in the national budget, he maintained that Article VI, Section 25 of the 1987 Constitution already provides that flexibility (by enacting) supplemental or special appropriations supported by funds actually available or by revenues to be raised.
“The issue before the court is not whether flexibility is desirable, it is whether that flexibility may operate outside the constitutional structure that governs the budget,” he added.
On the other hand, former Senate president Franklin Drilon argued that unprogrammed appropriations are not inherently unconstitutional.
“I concede that the temptation to declare the entire concept of unprogrammed funds as unconstitutional is very strong. I humbly submit, however, that the decision to no longer include unprogrammed funds as a component of the annual budget, or to strictly define its nature, is a matter vested in the Constitution, in our political bodies, Congress and the executive branch, and I quote, ‘the form, content and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law,’” he added.
However, he noted that possible violations in the use of UA are not found in the text of the law, but in the arithmetic of its execution.
Monsod, Diokno, Abad and Drilon served as amici curiae, or experts invited to provide insights during the proceedings.
The SC tackled four petitions seeking to declare as unconstitutional the UA and other alleged insertions in the 2024, 2025 and 2026 General Appropriations Acts.
