ASEANEWS HEADLINE-COURTS & LAW | MANILA: ‘Blank items’ in 2025 budget brought to SC
Davao City 3rd District Rep. Isidro Ungab and former executive secretary Vic Rodriguez have filed before the Supreme Court (SC) a petition for certiorari and prohibition against the 2025 General Appropriations Act./ STAR / File
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eH36tUd67OM
WATCH VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eH36tUd67OM
Constitutionality of 2025 nat’l budget challenged before SC | ANC
.
MANILA, Philippines — Nearly a month after its enactment, the 2025 national budget may again come under scrutiny – this time by the Supreme Court, which is being asked to declare the outlay unconstitutional.
Davao City 3rd District Rep. Isidro Ungab and former executive secretary Vic Rodriguez have filed before the Supreme Court (SC) a petition for certiorari and prohibition against the 2025 General Appropriations Act.
The GAA violated Article VI, Section 27 of the 1987 Constitution when members of the bicameral conference committee left blanks in its report on budget allocations for the National Irrigation Administration, Department of Agriculture and the Philippine Coconut Authority, the petitioners said.
These blanks, they said, were “very dubious and dangerous as the budgets for the said offices and programs remain undetermined.”
“Clearly, the Bicameral Conference Committee committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess jurisdiction when it signed the committee report on 2025 National Budget filled with blanks,” the petitioners stated.
|
|
.
They also claimed the 2025 budget law violated the Constitution for not giving the education sector the highest budget allocation.
Sought for comment, Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin said in a text message it is premature to react to the legal challenge, and stressed it’s the Office of the Solicitor General which will issue a statement on the matter.
In their petition, Rodriguez and Ungab said the 2025 GAA only “gave the impression” that the education sector got the lion’s share of the budget as the figures were “merely bloated” by the inclusion of non-education-related agencies.
It said budget appropriations for the Philippine Military Academy, Philippine National Police Academy, National Defense College of the Philippines, which are under the Department of National Defense and were historically classified under the defense sector, “were lumped with the appropriations for the education sector.”
Likewise, budget appropriations for the Local Government Academy, Philippine Public Safety College, Philippine Science High School, Science Education Institute, which were classified in other non-education sectors, were included under the budget for the education sector.
“However, a scrutiny of the foregoing allocation would demonstrate the resolve of the present government to assign the highest budgetary priority to the infrastructure sector, headlined by the DPWH (Department of Public Works and Highways),” the petitioners said, adding that this was a violation of Article XIV, Section 5(5) of the Constitution.
The petitioners also noted budget re-alignments which supposedly increased the proposed budget appropriations for Congress and other line agencies, in violation of Article VI, Section 25(1) of the Constitution as it exceeded the amounts recommended by the President in the National Expenditure Program.
From the proposed budget of P16.35 billion for the House of Representatives, they said the budget ballooned to P33.67 billion when the bill was passed into law. For the Senate, there was a “more modest” increase from P12.83 billion to P13.93 billion.
|
|
.
They also claimed “not a single centavo” was appropriated for the Philippine Health Insurance Corp.(PhilHealth), and justifying it with the supposed existence of P600 billion in reserve funds of the state insurer.
PhilHealth, as a result, would not be able to provide health benefits to its beneficiaries as mandated in the Universal Health Care Act, in violation of the constitutional right to health of all Filipinos.
“On this score, it cannot be denied that the 2025 GAA is unconstitutional and anti-working class,” the petitioners said.
Respondents in the petition were the House of Representatives represented by Speaker Martin Romualdez, the Senate represented by Senate President Francis Escudero, and Executive Secretary Bersamin.
Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra said the government will comment on the petition only if directed to do so by the Supreme Court.
“In the meantime the validity, regularity, and constitutionality of the 2025 GAA is legally presumed,” Guevarra said.
|
|
.
.
‘Opportunity’ for SC
Escudero said the Senate welcomes the petition as it provides “an opportunity for the Supreme Court, the third branch of government, to participate in the budget process.”
“The petition should not be feared and should not cause any worry. This just goes to show how alive our democracy is about any law, including the budget,” he added.
But Escudero said the presence of blank items in the bicameral conference committee report on the 2025 GAA – as claimed by Ungab and former president Rodrigo Duterte – was not enough basis to invalidate the GAA.
He said the blanks were there to enable staff to correct clerical errors in the bicam report, adding that there were no more blank items in the enrolled bill that served as the basis of the GAA.
“There are no discrepancies in the GAA. It is the law – not the bicam report – that is questioned for its constitutionality,” Escudero said.
|
|
.
.
“Clerical errors can be corrected in the report. In cases of conflict between the journal and the enrolled bill, the Supreme Court has a concept of journal entry rule, or the enrolled bill principle. The law is the bill signed by the President, not the bicameral conference committee report,” he added.
For some lawmakers, the filing of petition with the SC questioning the GAA is nothing but a ploy to destabilize the Marcos administration.
“The petition is more than just a legal maneuver – it is a calculated political gambit that exposes their intent to obstruct progress and destabilize the administration of President Marcos Jr.,” Rep. Paolo Ortega V said.
“Let us not mince words: This petition is an effort to undo the decision of Congress to cut P1.3 billion from the budget of the Office of the Vice President, a decision rooted in Congress’ constitutional duty to ensure that public funds are judiciously allocated,” Ortega pointed out.
Rep. Stella Luz Quimbo of the second district of Marikina City, who now sits as acting chairperson of the House of Representatives’ appropriations committee, maintained that the “ratification of the corrected bicameral committee conference report is unnecessary.”
“This is simply because Omnibus Provision 2 of the Report, which was ratified by the members, allows for the possibility of corrections, within limits stated in Omnibus Provision 1 (typographical errors and adjustments as a consequence of amendments),” she said.
|
|
.
.
Ortega said Rodriguez’s and Ungab’s filing of SC petition “reflects an alarming pattern of actions aimed at creating political uncertainty and diverting attention from the pressing needs of the Filipino people.”
“The motives behind this petition are suspect, to say the least. This is not just about budgetary provisions – it is about political leverage. The narrative being constructed here is clear: sow doubt about the legitimacy of the 2025 GAA, delay its implementation, and weaken the administration,” he said.
He called the filing of the petition “part of a broader scheme to undermine President Marcos and position Vice President Sara Duterte for an eventual takeover.”
“These tactics are divisive and dangerous, especially at a time when the Filipino people expect their leaders to focus on solutions rather than scheming. It is not just the government’s stability that is at stake – it is the trust of the people in our institutions,” he said.
|
|
.
For former senator Panfilo Lacson, the House of Representatives is at fault for allowing the Technical Working Group of its contingent in the bicameral conference committee to fill out the blank portion of the GAA.
Lacson said Malacañang has no accountability in the controversy since Marcos signed the version corrected by Quimbo of the committee on appropriations.
“I agree with (former) senator (Vicente) Tito Sotto, that some of our lawmakers should review the parliamentary procedures because when the amendment is substantial, especially when you change the figures, for example P1 billion will be missing, then the technical working group will fill it out, that is not a typographical error or ministerial amendment that you can delegate to the technical working group,” Lacson said in an interview with “Storycon” on One News.
“Whenever the changes are substantial, the amendment or changes must be done on the floor, and the approval should be in the plenary. It cannot be done outside the plenary,” he added. — Marc Jayson Cayabyab, Delon Porcalla, Jose Rodel Clapano, Alexis Romero
|
|
Memento Maxima Digital Marketing
