Supreme Court Challenges 2025 General Appropriations Act: Key Points and Controversies
(UPDATE)
Former executive secretary Victor Rodriguez and Davao City 3rd District Rep. Isidro Ungab have filed a case before the Supreme Court against the constitutionality of the General Appropriations Act (GAA) of 2025. The petitioners argue that the 2025 national budget violates several constitutional provisions, including the right to health, limitations on increasing congressional appropriations beyond presidential recommendations, and prioritizing education in the national budget.
The petition names the House of Representatives, the Senate, and Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin as respondents. The petitioners seek a Supreme Court declaration that the budget law is unconstitutional, citing abuse of discretion in its passage and implementation.
Key Allegations Against the 2025 GAA
The petitioners argue that the 2025 GAA breaches Article II, Section 15 of the Constitution, which mandates the state to protect and promote the right to health. They claim that the budget cuts funding for the Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (PhilHealth), contradicting the Universal Health Care Act (UHCA). By stripping PhilHealth of subsidies, the government fails to fulfill its obligation to provide accessible healthcare to Filipinos.
The petition further alleges that the House of Representatives and the Senate violated Article VI, Section 25(1) of the Constitution, which limits Congress from increasing the President’s recommended appropriations in the National Expenditure Program (NEP). According to the petitioners, the House’s budget increased from P16.35 billion to P33.67 billion, and the Senate’s budget rose from P12.83 billion to P13.93 billion, justifications not included in the budget.
Education and Transparency Issues
The petitioners argue that while the budget claims to prioritize education, it includes non-educational agencies such as the Philippine Military Academy (PMA), Philippine National Police Academy (PNPA), and National Defense College of the Philippines (NDCP), traditionally under the defense sector. They believe that excluding these agencies, the actual education budget is significantly lower than the allocation for infrastructure, specifically the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), which was allotted P1.034 trillion.
The petitioners argue that this irregularity breaches Article VI, Section 27 of the Constitution, which mandates transparency and accountability in the legislative process. They claim legal standing as taxpayers and PhilHealth members to challenge the constitutionality of the law involving the illegal disbursement of public funds.
To ensure justice and uphold constitutional mandates, the petitioners asked the Supreme Court to declare the 2025 GAA unconstitutional.
Government’s Response and Significance
The case qualifies as an exception to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts due to its urgency and national significance. If the Supreme Court grants the petition, it could lead to the nullification of the 2025 GAA, significantly impacting government operations and public services. The budget serves as the primary instrument for funding government programs and initiatives.
Lawmakers involved in the budget passage defend it, asserting that it underwent rigorous deliberations and complied with all constitutional requirements. Malacañang stated it was “too soon to comment” on the petition.
Discrepancies in the Budget Report
The petition stemmed from discrepancies in the bicameral committee report on the recently approved 2025 national budget. Ungab claimed there were missing budget amounts for items under the Department of Agriculture and unprogrammed appropriations that could not be considered typographical, grammatical, or printing errors.
Former President Duterte’s Reaction
Former president Rodrigo Duterte said the budget should not contain empty items. He emphasized the need for accountability, stating that tampering with the budget could lead to criminal prosecution. President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. dismissed Duterte’s statements as “lies,” insisting that vacant items in GAA are not allowed in Philippine history.
Vetoed Budget Items
The P6.326 trillion national budget was signed on December 30, 2024, after the president vetoed over P194 billion worth of line items deemed inconsistent with administrative priorities. Vetoed items included some DPWH programs reviewed to restore funds Congress had cut.
Conclusion
The challenge against the 2025 GAA raises significant questions about budgetary transparency and accountability. With the Supreme Court hearing this case, a ruling could redefine government spending and potentially reshape future budgets. As the legal proceedings unfold, it remains to be seen how these challenges will affect national governance and public services.
Do you think the 2025 General Appropriations Act is constitutional? Share your thoughts in the comments below! For more news updates, subscribe to our newsletter and follow us on social media. Together, we can stay informed and engaged.