Why the SC declared the budgets unconstitutional

The expanded scope of the Supreme Court's power of judicial review under the 1987 Constitution is anchored on the fundamental principle of checks and balances, as a corollary to separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judiciary.

Pursuant to these basic principles of constitutional and political law, in a number of times, the highest court of the land has rebuffed both the president and Congress for going beyond the scope of their respective authority. Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, who wrote this landmark decision, opened his ponencia by saying: "Every peso collected in taxes and fees represents labor rendered, needs deferred, perseverance, and sacrifice endured by our people. The General Appropriations Act must honor that sacrifice".

Justice Leonen lectured both the Office of the President and Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate: "The General Appropriations Act is among the most consequential enactments of government: It determines how public resources will be used to respond to our people's suffering and to advance their hopes and aspirations. It has never been a catalogue of licenses to abuse or to steal." Brave and biting words from one who is aspiring to become the next chief justice of the land.

By such a milestone ruling, the Supreme Court en banc, granted the petition of the late Congressman Edcel C. Lagman et al. (G.R. No. 271059) and partly granted the petition of former senator Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III et al. (G.R. No. 271347) challenging the increase in unprogrammed appropriations made by Congress in the 2024 General Appropriations Act (GAA). It declared unconstitutional Republic Act No. 11975 or the 2024 GAA because the total appropriations were effectively increased by ?449.5 billion.

By that earth-shaking decision, the SC partly granted representatives Edgar R. Erice's and Leila M. De Lima’s petition (G.R. No. E-04036) challenging the constitutionality of Chapter XLIII of the 2026 GAA, which authorizes unprogrammed appropriation. The SC also granted the petition by Filipinos for Peace, Justice and Progress Movement, Inc. et al. (G.R. No. E-02472). It declared unconstitutional RA 12116 or the 2025 GAA. Therefore, the Senate and the Lower House are now poised to review the 2027 GAA in order to avoid a repetition of such a huge mistake.

Justice Leonen prefaced his decision by declaring: "Court is asked again, through these Petitions, to exercise its delicate constitutional duty to draw firmer constitutional boundaries against greed and abuse. We do not shrink from that duty. Yet, we resolve these consolidated cases with the confidence and the hope that those in the political departments will also find the courage and moral clarity to hold their ow? leaders accountable when they betray the people they are sworn to serve." The court is accusing the legislators and the president of betraying the peoples' trust.

Without mincing words, the ponente declared: "Congress is constitutionally prohibited from increasing the president's total recommended appropriations in the Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing (BESF), which covers both programmed and unprogrammed appropriations. Republic Act No. 11975 or the 2024 General Appropriations Act (2024 GAA) is unconstitutional because the total appropriations were increased by PHP 449.5 billion. The increases were in the unprogrammed allocations."

By this decision, the Supreme Court condemned pork barrel and has put its foot down on congressional insertions designed to repeat the flood-control fiasco and all forms of legislative mumbo-jumbo and hocus-pocus in stealing peoples' money. By this ruling the people won over those who seek to squander and steal the people’s money.