For later release is now never for release

First off, let me clarify to our readers that they did not see a repeat of my column about Cabinet appointees entitled “Presidential prerogative” last Wednesday. It was the title of my previous week’s column. The column last Wednesday was originally entitled: “Same old story.” This glitch was an unintended error of our layout artist. Fortunately, the erroneously titled column dwelt to a certain extent on presidential prerogatives over the yearly budget of the national government.

The Supreme Court (SC) released late Wednesday its ruling in favor of the four consolidated petitions against three Congress-approved budget laws. Specifically, the SC ruling involved the 2024, 2025 and the 2026 General Appropriations Acts (GAA). The 2024 and the 2025 GAAs were approved by the 19th Congress while it was the present 20th Congress that approved the 2026 GAA.

The SC ruling came a week after the House of Representatives approved on third and final reading the proposed 2027 General Appropriations Bill (GAB). Dubbed as “The President’s Budget,” it contains the P7.2-trillion National Expenditure Program (NEP) for next year. The NEP is the original GAB as approved by the President and submitted to Congress by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM).

President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. (PBBM) endorsed to Congress the 2027 NEP. Voting 281-13 with one abstention, pro-administration House lawmakers stamped their approval on the 2027 GAB under House Bill (HB) 10858 containing the NEP, as amended.

It was immediately transmitted to the Senate that simultaneously undertook their own preliminary public hearings on the 2027 NEP. The printed copy of the House-approved 2027 GAB is now pending before the Senate finance committee chaired by Sen. JV Ejercito. Once the Senate resumes session on Nov. 9, they will approve in plenary their own version of the budget bill.

Once approved into law, the proposed 2027 budget bill will fund not just the NEP but all the congressional amendments – another word for insertions – that lawmakers put into it. The bulk, if not all, of these congressional amendments were done by lawmakers with moist eyes set on the May 2028 national and local elections.

The 15-man SC voted 13-2 that declared as “unconstitutional” specific provisions of the three GAAs, mostly on a number of the unprogrammed appropriations (UA). SC senior associate justice Marvic Leonen penned the majority decision that favorably granted the petitioners. The SC found as unconstitutional the increased UA provision that was P449.5 billion more than “The President’s Budget” in the 2024 GAA.

The UA is that part of the total budget, mostly consisting of foreign-assisted projects (FAPs) that need peso counterpart funds. The budget releases of FAPs are subject to availability of funds as certified by the National Treasury. Much of the “congressional insertions” were carved out from UA and realigned to other projects identified by proponent lawmakers.

Congress holds the power of the purse as enshrined in our country’s 1987 Constitution. Aside from the veto power, the prerogative to allow budget releases still remains with the President, through his alter ego, the DBM secretary.

Ironically, the 121-page SC decision absolved PBBM of any culpability or liability.

“The President did not commit grave abuse of discretion when he certified (2024 GAA) as urgent House Bill No. 8980,” the SC ruling stated.

The SC conducted a total of six sessions of oral arguments. The first was held on April 7 and the last was on July 14. The SC handed down the ruling on Oct. 7 but was released and announced 13 days later. At least five “amici curiae” were invited to explain and help the SC justices understand the budget process during the oral arguments. They were composed of former Cabinet officials and erstwhile legislators whose individual expertise was sought to enlighten the SC justices.

One of them, former Economic Planning secretary Solita “Winnie” Monsod, deplored UA was turned into a new source for congressional pork barrel funds. Monsod cited a previous SC ruling that struck down “pork-barrel” allocations in the annual budget as unconstitutional. Thus, she strongly batted to declare the same against UA provisions in the GAA.

Monsod’s stand on UA was not shared by the other amicus curiae. Monetary Board member Benjamin Diokno, who is also an economist, along with erstwhile Batanes Rep. Florencio “Butch” Abad, ex-Senate president Franklin Drilon and former Albay congressman now PBBM’s Presidential Legislative Liaison Office (PLLO) Secretary Joey Salceda, defended the necessity of UA provisions in the annual budget.

It won’t be a surprise if disgruntled lawmakers might decry as another case of “judicial overreach” the latest SC ruling that reversed anew their legislative acts as being unconstitutional. The same Gesmundo-led High Court last year ruled the 2025 impeachment case they filed against Vice President Sara Duterte as invalid and violated certain provisions of the Constitution.

VP Sara claimed before that both PBBM and presidential first cousin, ex-speaker Martin Romualdez, allegedly dangled budget releases from the 2025 GAA to House members of the previous Congress. The budgets for the pet projects of lawmakers were released supposedly to those who signed the 2025 impeachment case against VP Sara.

The 2027 GAB is the penultimate budget law before both PBBM and members of the current Congress bow out at the end of their respective terms of office. The scandal-rocked 2025 GAA on “ghost” flood control projects continues to haunt Congress. Legislators bewail in silence the consequent DBM-impounding of their GAA-funded pet projects.

Categorized as “FLR,” or for later release, these current allocations under the 2026 GAA will likely be withheld until the SC decision on the three GAAs will become final and executory. Malacañang already announced yesterday the temporary suspension of project implementation while the Office of the Solicitor General will seek a review of the SC decision, in particular on the UA provision of the GAAs.

Most likely than not, the suspended implementation will be on congressional projects tucked into constitutionally-declared infirm UA provisions. From FLR, it will now become NFR, as in Never For Release.