The Supreme Court held its first oral arguments on April 7 on petitions challenging unprogrammed appropriations in the 2024, 2025, and 2026 national budgets. Invited experts as amici curiae presented divided views on their legality and implications. Some warned of weakened transparency, while others defended their necessity.
The Supreme Court in Manila held the first part of its oral arguments on Tuesday, April 7, on four petitions seeking to declare unprogrammed appropriations (UA) and other alleged insertions in the 2024, 2025, and 2026 General Appropriations Acts unconstitutional.
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, citing a Congressional Policy and Budgeting Research Department study, that approved UA have exceeded proposed funds since 2022, leading to higher-than-planned spending and failure to meet budget deficit and debt-to-GDP targets.
Former Department of Budget and Management Secretary Benjamin Diokno pointed to five instances where Congress-approved UA exceeded presidential proposals, three in 2023, 2024, and 2025. 'This is only meant to reflect the monumental abuses done by Congress during the last three years,' he added. Former budget secretary Florencio Abad warned that recent UA expansions 'risk becoming... a mechanism for circumventing constitutional restraints.'
Former Senate President Franklin Drilon argued that unprogrammed appropriations are not inherently unconstitutional. 'The decision to no longer include unprogrammed funds as a component of the annual budget... is a matter vested in... Congress and the executive branch,' he said, noting violations occur in execution, not the law itself.