With P150-B in unprogrammed funds intact, Supreme Court challenge looms

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

MANILA, Philippines — The controversial use of unprogrammed appropriations has been questioned for years, with critics likening it to discretionary funds or the government’s pork.

There still isn’t a final verdict, let alone a formal challenge, on whether or not such funds are constitutional, despite having existed in the country’s national budget for decades already.  

In an interview on Monday, January 5, Rep. Edgar Erice (Caloocan, 2nd District) said a draft of the petition challenging the constitutionality of the unprogrammed appropriations before the Supreme Court is already in the works. 

He said such a petition would be filed if Marcos did not veto the entire P243-billion unprogrammed appropriations budget that was ratified by Congress. 

“We're actually preparing the petition before the Supreme Court,” Erice said over DZBB 594.  

“We are just waiting for him to sign it and to see which items he vetoes, or if he vetoes nothing at all. That is what we will file with the Supreme Court,” he added in Filipino.

President Bongbong Marcos, however, kept over P150.9 billion in unprogrammed appropriations, only vetoing P92.5 billion worth of line items.

While this is the smallest budget since 2019, several minority lawmakers said the Marcos administration missed the point and is only attempting to appease the public over the pork-like allocations flagged.

What the Constitution says

For Erice, it is clear that unprogrammed appropriations are unconstitutional. He argued that no program or project, especially the ones the government is legally and obligated to deliver, should be funded by an uncertain source of funding. 

Erice pointed to Justice Ramon Paul Hernando’s opinion in the Supreme Court decision on the P89-billion PhilHealth transfer, saying expenditures must be backed by a definite source of funding.

Hernandez specifically stressed that under Article VII, Section 22 of the Constitution, the executive branch should only submit to Congress “a budget of expenditures and sources of financing.” 

At the same time, he said Article VI, Section 25 sets clear limits and prohibitions on the budget bill by requiring that provisions be tied to specific budget appropriations.

One such limitation is that Congress is prohibited from increasing the executive’s recommended budget. For example, with P6.793 trillion proposed for the 2026 budget, lawmakers cannot exceed that amount in exercising the power of the purse.

For Hernandez, the inclusion of unprogrammed appropriations — which are not funded under the P6.793 trillion allocation — already violates this rule, as presetting amounts to be spent if excess revenues materialize effectively allows spending beyond the proposed budget ceiling.

PhilHealth fund transfer

In December 2025, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the Department of Finance order and the special provision in the 2024 national budget that authorized the transfer of P89 billion from PhilHealth’s “excess” reserves to unprogrammed funds.

This is because health and tax laws require PhilHealth funds to be used exclusively for the country’s universal health care program.

Transferring these funds to unprogrammed appropriations would divert them from universal health care, since unprogrammed items fund preset projects only if excess revenues are generated — something the Supreme Court said PhilHealth reserves cannot be used for.

In other words, without revenues beyond government targets, projects listed under unprogrammed appropriations cannot be funded.

Opt for a special appropriations bill

Rep. Leila de Lima (ML Party-list) also lambasted the continued existence of the so-called “shadow pork,” saying the remaining P150.9 unprogrammed funds “bypass constitutional safeguards.”  

She added that Executive Secretary Ralph Recto, who was Finance Secretary when the transfer happened, admitted on Monday that the government is barely generating excess revenue.

So, De Lima asked, isn’t it illogical to have unprogrammed appropriations if there’s no excess revenue to rely on? 

“What money will be used to fund the UAs? Why include items in the UAs at all?” she said. 

She further argued that unprogrammed appropriations should not be used to cover gaps in programmed funds, and that any additional spending should wait for a special appropriations bill once excess revenue becomes available — not the other way around.

"Once and for all, so this can be settled once and for all, the Supreme Court can issue a decision on unprogrammed appropriations," Erice said in a mix of English and Filipino.

Marcos signed the 2026 General Appropriations Act on Monday, keeping the whole P6.793-trillion budget intact and only vetoing a portion of the unprogrammed appropriations.