CALOOCAN City Rep. Edgar Erice on Friday urged President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) to halt unprogrammed appropriations releases that violate the Supreme Court’s recent budget ruling and suspend remaining Local Government Support Fund disbursements pending a review of their constitutionality.
Erice warned that the government’s plan to seek reconsideration of the ruling does not authorize it to disregard enforceable court restrictions, saying he would seek a temporary restraining order if officials proceed with noncompliant releases.
“The right to seek reconsideration must be respected. But an announcement that government will seek reconsideration is not, by itself, authority to disregard an enforceable prohibition,” Erice said.
He clarified that his call to suspend undisbursed LGSF allocations, including financial assistance to local government units, was intended to prevent questionable spending while their purposes, allocation standards and release mechanisms are examined.
He stressed that this did not mean the court had invalidated every LGSF allocation.
The ruling covered the P449.5-billion congressional increase in 2024 unprogrammed appropriations, increases involving special accounts in the 2025 budget and specified release provisions in the 2026 budget.
It also rejected the Sagip lump-sum mechanism under the 2024 and 2025 budgets.
Erice said unprogrammed appropriations are permissible only within constitutional safeguards and applicable funding conditions and should not be treated as unrestricted spending authority.
He also challenged the executive and congressional leadership to publish a project-level accounting of reductions and reallocations made during the preparation and enactment of the 2024 and 2025 budgets.
The disclosure, he said, should identify affected programs, activities and projects; their original and final allocations; the amounts removed; where the funds were redirected; and the officials who proposed and approved the changes.
“Show us exactly which PAPs were reduced, by how much, and where the money went. Publish the amendment records, reconciliation worksheets and supporting documents. The public deserves a traceable account of these decisions,” Erice said.
He cautioned, however, that budget reductions or realignments alone do not establish criminal wrongdoing, although deliberate concealment or knowing circumvention of enforceable restrictions could lead to civil, criminal or administrative liability in appropriate proceedings.
Erice also rejected the notion that the operative fact doctrine, which the court applied to the 2024 and 2025 budgets, automatically shields officials from liability for past actions or protects future releases undertaken in deliberate disregard of court restrictions.
Responding to claims of judicial overreach, he maintained that determining the constitutionality of government spending falls within the Supreme Court’s judicial function.
“Congress appropriates, the executive implements, and the Supreme Court determines constitutionality. The political branches may ask the Court to reconsider, but they cannot substitute their own judgment for its final ruling,” he said.
