The Supreme Court ruled that Republic Act No. 11975 or the 2024 General Appropriations Act (2024 GAA) and Republic Act No. 12116 or the 2025 General Appropriations Act (2025 GAA) are unconstitutional. The Court held that 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.
The Case
The Court resolved consolidated Petitions docketed as G.R. Nos. 271059, 271347, E-02472 and E-04036. The Petitions in G.R. No. 271059 and G.R. No. 271347 assailed the constitutionality of the PHP 449.5 billion increase in the Unprogrammed Appropriations of the 2024 GAA. According to the decision, the increase was made by the Bicameral Conference Committee and ratified by Congress, arguably in violation of Article VI, Section 25(1) of the Constitution.
The Petition in G.R. No. 271347 additionally questioned the constitutionality of the Presidential Certification of Urgency for House Bill No. 8980 (2024 General Appropriations Bill), absent the existence of any calamity or emergency as required under Article VI, Section 26(2) of the Constitution. In the Court's Resolution dated April 3, 2024, G.R. No. 271059 and G.R. No. 271347 were consolidated. The respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed their Consolidated Comment.
The Petition in G.R. No. E-04036 assailed the constitutionality of Chapter XLII of Republic Act No. 12314 or the 2026 General Appropriations Act (2026 GAA) authorizing unprogrammed appropriations, and sought to nullify and prohibit its implementation. The decision notes that unprogrammed appropriations, or unprogrammed funds, formed part of the national budget since 1987.
The Issue
The Court was asked to examine whether Congress could increase the president's total recommended appropriations, and whether the increases in the 2024 and 2025 budget laws violated the Constitution. The decision framed the cases as an opportune time to examine, reaffirm, and preserve the constitutional design and safeguards on the budgetary process.
The Ruling
The Court declared the 2024 GAA unconstitutional because the total appropriations were increased by PHP 449.5 billion. The increases were in the unprogrammed allocations. The Court stated that unprogrammed appropriations per se are not unconstitutional, but become constitutionally infirm when they lack sufficient standards, effectively granting the Executive unchecked spending authority that undermines funding for programmed projects when estimated government revenues are not realized.
The Court likewise declared the 2025 GAA unconstitutional because of the increase in the programmed appropriation for Special Road Fund by PHP 17,992,085,000.00, thereby increasing the president's total proposed appropriations. The appropriation for Special Road Fund — Motor Vehicles User Charge is a line item under the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).
The Court explained that, ordinarily, Congress has the discretion to increase the allocation of the Special Road Fund, but it cannot reallocate a statutorily earmarked Special Account in the General Fund (SAGF). The Administrative Code, in Section 25, limits this discretion, so Congress could not increase this SAGF without violating Article VI, Section 25(1) of the Constitution.
By the Numbers
- PHP 449.5 billion — the increase in the Unprogrammed Appropriations of the 2024 GAA.
- PHP 17,992,085,000.00 — the increase in the programmed appropriation for Special Road Fund in the 2025 GAA.
- Republic Act No. 11975 — the 2024 GAA.
- Republic Act No. 12116 — the 2025 GAA.
- Republic Act No. 12314 — the 2026 GAA.
- 1987 — the year unprogrammed appropriations formed part of the national budget.
- April 3, 2024 — the Resolution consolidating G.R. No. 271059 and G.R. No. 271347.
- October 7, 2026 — date of promulgation.
The Court's Reasoning
The decision states that every peso collected in taxes and fees represents labor rendered, needs deferred, perseverance, and sacrifice endured by the people, and that the General Appropriations Act must honor that sacrifice. It describes the General Appropriations Act as among the most consequential enactments of government because it determines how public resources will be used to respond to the people's suffering and to advance their hopes and aspirations.
The decision recounts that, following the controversial transfer of the Philippine Health Corporation's "fund balance" to the National Treasury came the flood control scandal and news of excesses in the handling of public funds, and that successive challenges were brought against the 2024, 2025, and 2026 budgets before the Court, primarily assailing the constitutionality of unprogrammed appropriations and increases made during the bicameral phase.
The Court described the budgetary process, explaining that the proposed budget goes first to the House of Representatives, whose Appropriations Committee conducts hearings and scrutinizes agency programs, activities, and projects before presenting the amended proposal as the General Appropriations Bill. The Senate Finance Committee conducts its own review, and a Bicameral Conference Committee reconciles conflicting provisions of both versions. The Bicameral Conference Committee Report is signed by a majority of the members of both Panels and ratified by the Senate and House. The president then approves and signs the enrolled bill into law, subject to presidential veto, which allows the president to directly veto specific items in the GAA.
On execution, the decision explains that the DBM oversees the release of funds using the GAA as legal basis, classifying items into those needing and not needing clearance for release, issuing SAROs and the GAA as the Allotment Order, and later disbursement authorities such as a Notice of Cash Allowance. On accountability, it states that the Administrative Code, Book VI, Chapter VI requires agency heads to develop and enforce a system for periodic measurement and evaluation of the performance of their agencies, and to report on their annual performance to the president.
Source: Supreme Court Decision in G.R. Nos. 271059, 271347, E-02472 and E-04036, promulgated October 7, 2026, penned by Justice Leonen.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.