MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court’s ruling on unprogrammed appropriations could force Congress to rethink how it funds government programs in 2027, Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero said Sunday, warning that lawmakers can no longer rely on the old practice of adding unprogrammed funds to the budget proposed by the executive branch.
“The biggest impact will be on the 2027 budget,” Escudero said in the 14th episode of his program Chiz Wiz: Usapang May Laman.
He said the high court declared unconstitutional the practice of allowing unprogrammed appropriations to exceed the budget proposed by the executive branch, citing Article VI, Section 25 of the Constitution, which prohibits Congress from increasing the appropriations recommended by the president for government operations.
“What previous Congresses did—not just in 2024, but also in 2023, 2022, 2021 and earlier years—was to add unprogrammed funds on top of the programmed budget proposed by the president,” he said.
“The Supreme Court said that cannot be done. Those funds must be included in the computation, and you cannot go beyond the proposed budget," he added.
The court also struck down certain conditions governing the release of unprogrammed appropriations, Escudero said, although he cautioned that the full implications of the ruling remained uncertain because it was not yet final.
He said the Office of the Solicitor General was likely to seek reconsideration, giving the high court an opportunity to clarify or modify its decision.
“It could be changed, or it could remain the same,” Escudero said. “So the question is, what will be the effect on the money that has already been spent?”
“Let us wait for the motion for reconsideration. But because there is no TRO, you cannot, so to speak, put the toothpaste back into the tube,” he said. “If a project has already been implemented, you cannot simply demolish the concrete or tear down the building. Whatever has been completed is already there.”
Escudero said the 2025 national budget remained in effect through the end of 2026.
“My view is that those portions that have not yet been implemented and are covered by the prohibition should no longer be implemented once the decision becomes final,” he said. “But those that have already been implemented would be difficult to reverse because the Supreme Court did not issue a temporary restraining order.”
The House of Representatives has passed its version of the proposed national budget, which is now being reviewed by the Senate.
If the Supreme Court has not issued a final ruling by the time Congress approves the spending plan, lawmakers would have to decide whether to retain previous budget practices or adjust their approach in anticipation of the court’s decision, Escudero said.
“The question is whether Congress will take the chance and say, ‘We might win the motion for reconsideration, so let us continue doing things the way we used to,’ or whether it will say, ‘We might lose, so let us comply now,’” he said.
“We have to adjust. We can no longer follow the old practice of making the budget bigger than what the government proposed by using unprogrammed funds,” he added.
