2 days ago
6
The main building of the Philippine Supreme Court in Manila as taken on Dec. 13, 2024.
Philstar.com / Martin Ramos
MANILA, Philippines — Petitioners have asked the Supreme Court to issue a temporary restraining order on the implementation and disbursement of funds for the Ayuda sa Kapos ang Kita Program (AKAP).
They argued that it mirrors a pork barrel scheme and that the program’s inclusion in the 2025 national budget is unconstitutional.
In a 92-page petition filed before the high court on Friday, March 28, petitioners are seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent government agencies from enforcing some line items under the P6.326 trillion budget until a final resolution is reached.
“Petitioners respectfully move for the issuance of a temporary restraining order, a writ of preliminary injunction, and/or other injunctive remedies … to stop the enforcement of the 2025 GAA,” the petition read.
The petitioners are also seeking certiorari and prohibition, asking the court to determine whether there was grave abuse of discretion in approving the program and to bar respondents from proceeding with its implementation if found unlawful.
The AKAP, which is implemented by the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), provides financial aid to “near-poor” minimum wage earners.
Since the 2025 budget hearings, the program has faced criticism, with some lawmakers and Vice President Sara Duterte alleging it is being used for vote-buying. Questions have also been raised about its implementation, particularly whether lawmakers have a say in selecting beneficiaries.
Amid the controversy, the executive branch decided to have the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) oversee the disbursement of the program’s P26-billion budget.
At the same time, it has prompted petitions like this challenging its constitutionality, stating that the program lacks safeguards in its post-enactment phase and that administrative regulations alone are insufficient.
The DSWD previously denied claims that the AKAP is a form of pork barrel, saying public officials are not involved in choosing beneficiaries.
The petition was filed by the 1Sambayan Coalition, Sanlakas, former Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, economics associate professor Cielo Magno, constitutional law professor Dante Gatmaytan and physician Ma. Dominga Cecilia Padilla.
Meanwhile, respondents are the Senate, House of Representatives, Office of the Executive Secretary, Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and Department of Finance (DOF).
The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) was also named as a respondent, with petitioners contesting that its budget is unconstitutional for being the largest, exceeding allocations for education agencies such as the Department of Education (DepEd).
The petition also flags discrepancies in the published 2025 General Appropriations Act (GAA), noting that the DPWH’s total appropriation remains at around P1.113 trillion — higher than the reported final of about P1.008 trillion — despite vetoes made by President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. under the agency.
RELATED: What counts as education spending? Teachers mull legal action over 2025 budget
The petition also urges Congress to convene a special session, if not already in session, to pass a supplemental budget addressing funding deemed shortages in the education sector and restoring the government subsidy for the Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (PhilHealth).
A previous petition filed by the Duterte camp also challenges the constitutionality of Congress approving zero subsidy for PhilHealth and allocating a smaller budget for the education sector compared to the DPWH.
The latest petition raises similar arguments, asserting that the Universal Healthcare Act mandates government funding for PhilHealth in the GAA and that the education budget for 2025 should exceed that of the DPWH.
The Office of the Solicitor General has responded to a previous petition filed, arguing that it should be dismissed. This petition also challenges the constitutionality of the blank line items found in the bicameral conference committee report.
