THE Supreme Court directed all parties and the amici curiae (friends of the court) to submit their respective memoranda within 30 days after concluding oral arguments on the consolidated petitions that questioned the constitutionality of unprogrammed appropriations in the 2024, 2025 and 2026 national budgets.
Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo issued the order after adjourning Tuesday’s oral arguments, saying the memoranda would allow the Court to evaluate the legal arguments of all parties before deliberating whether Congress’ unprogrammed appropriations and budget adjustments violate the Constitution.
Gesmundo said the parties and the amici curiae have a non-extendible period of 30 days to file their memoranda to enable the Court to promptly resolve the constitutional challenges, noting the judiciary’s awareness of the strict timelines governing the national budget process.
The petitions before the Court challenge the legality of unprogrammed appropriations and alleged budget insertions made in the 2024, 2025 and 2026 General Appropriations Acts.
The first petition was filed by the late Albay representative Edcel Lagman, later substituted by Cricelle Lagman, together with Camarines Sur Rep. Gabriel Bordado Jr. and former Basilan representative Mujiv Hataman. The petition questions the alleged P449.5-billion increase in unprogrammed appropriations during the bicameral conference committee’s deliberations on the 2024 national budget.
The second petition was filed by former senator Aquilino Pimentel III and former House speaker Pantaleon Alvarez against former executive secretary Lucas Bersamin and former Budget secretary Amenah Pangandaman.
The third petition was filed by the civic group Filipinos for Peace, Justice and Progress Movement Inc., which questioned the legality of amendments involving specific special accounts.
Finally, the fourth petition was filed by former Caloocan representative Edgar Erice and Rep. Leila de Lima, challenging the unprogrammed appropriations included in the 2026 General Appropriations Act.
The petitioners are asking the Supreme Court to declare the questioned appropriations and budget adjustments unconstitutional. They argue that the bicameral conference committee improperly increased the unprogrammed appropriations by relying on speculative revenue projections, which they claim constituted grave abuse of discretion and violated Congress’ constitutional power of the purse.