Du30 allies raise budget ‘blanks’ in SC petition
Allies of former President Rodrigo Duterte have brought their allegations of irregularities in the enactment of the 2025 national budget to the Supreme Court, claiming, among others, that the bicameral conference committee submitted a report containing blank items on the General Appropriations Bill (GAB), allegedly violating the 1987 Constitution.
In a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed on Monday afternoon, former Executive Secretary Victor Rodriguez and Davao City Rep. Isidro Ungab asked the high tribunal to declare Republic Act No. 12116, or the General Appropriations Act (GAA) of 2025, as “unconstitutional.”
Joining Rodriguez, who earlier served President Marcos as his executive secretary, and Ungab are individuals who identified themselves as either taxpayers or paying members of the Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (PhilHealth).
Named respondents are the House of Representatives, represented by Speaker Martin Romualdez; the Senate, represented by Senate President Francis Escudero, and Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin.
According to the petitioners, the legislative and executive branches violated Article VI, Section 27 of the 1987 Constitution, which mandates that no public funds can be allocated without an appropriation made by law, when the bicam panel submitted a GAB report with blank items.
The GAB is a proposed law that details the government’s budget and allocations for different agencies, programs and projects, while the bicam report is the reconciled version of the House and the Senate’s respective budget bills. The GAB then becomes the GAA, once signed by the President.
Blank items
The petitioners cited the blank items pertaining to the amendments of the budget allocations for the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) and the Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA); national programs of the Department of Agriculture (DA); the subsidies to PCA and NIA and communal irrigation systems, as well as the total budget of the DA.
The identified items, however, all had appropriated amounts under the 2025 GAA signed by Mr. Marcos, a copy of which is available on the Department of Budget and Management website.
The petitioner said the blank items in the bicam report were “very dubious and dangerous as the budgets for the said offices and programs remain to be undetermined.”
While it is true that the bicam panel has the power to reconcile the conflicting provisions from the Senate and the House versions of the 2025 GAB, “it is prohibited from amending provisions without clearly stating the version to which it should be amended to. Such irregularity is a blatant violation of the Constitution which should not be condoned,” the petitioners argued.
‘Merely bloated’
They also claimed that the respondents violated Article XIV, Section 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution as the appropriations to the education sector were “merely bloated” to give the impression of a “superficial adherence” to the constitutional requirement of allocating the biggest share of the budget to education.
The petition cited how the Philippine Military Academy, the Philippine National Police Academy, and the National Defense College of the Philippines, which were under the Department of National Defense and were historically categorized under the defense sector, “were lumped with appropriations for the education sector.”
It also noted that the Local Government Academy, the Philippine Public Safety College, the Philippine Science High School System, and the Science Education Institute, which were previously classified in other non-education sectors, were now included in the education budget.
Illegal realignment
“Culled from the foregoing, it is unquestionable that the 2025 GAA forced the inclusion of unrelated line agencies in the education sector’s budget to give it the appearance of compliance with the constitutional mandate,” the petitioners said.
“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 Department of Public Works and Highways,” they added.
The petition further argued that RA 12116 violated the constitutional right to health of the people when it stripped PhilHealth of its budget on the assumption that its reserves are sufficient to augment its operation.
Instead of allocating the excess funds to decrease the amount of members’ contributions and to increase the benefits, the petitioners claimed the excess funds would now be used for the operational budget of PhilHealth, deviating from the goals of the Constitution and the Universal Health Care Act.
The respondents were also accused of violating Article VI Section 25(1) of the Constitution, which provides that Congress may not increase appropriations recommended by the President for government operations as specified in the budget, when it “realigned the proposed appropriations per the 2025 NEP which, in effect, increased the proposed budget appropriations for Congress and other line agencies.”
Process aboveboard
Majority party lawmakers on Tuesday also defended the 2025 GAA from allegations of irregularities.
In separate statements, acting House appropriations chair and Marikina Rep. Stella Luz Quimbo, Deputy Majority Leader and La Union Rep. Paolo Ortega V and Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong reiterated their belief that the 2025 GAA could withstand any legal challenge and that the budget process was aboveboard.
“Our position is that the ratification of the corrected bicam 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 (typographical errors and adjustments as a consequence of amendments),” said Quimbo.
“That’s within their right to do so,” echoed Adiong. “This is a free country, they can file any petition for something they think is important.”
Ortega, meanwhile, did not mince words and called Ungab’s petition as a “calculated political gambit” to sow uncertainty and undermine the administration of President Marcos.
Palace defers comment
He reiterated his allegation that the petitioners were trying to undo the national budget to force the government to revert to the 2024 budget, where Vice President Sara Duterte had a higher budget.
Opposition lawmakers, on the other hand, said the legal challenge was only to be expected given the irregularities surrounding the ratification of the bicam report.
Malacañang declined to comment on the petition.
In a Viber message to reporters, Bersamin said he has yet to see or receive a copy of a Supreme Court petition.
“[It’s] too soon to comment,” he said.
Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra said his office would respond to the petition “if directed by the Supreme Court to do so.”
“In the meantime the validity, regularity and constitutionality of the 2025 GAA is legally presumed,” he said. —WITH REPORTS FROM KRIXIA SUBINGSUBING AND MELVIN GASCON
2024: The hottest year ever