SPEAKING OUT
Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel III is set to challenge before the Supreme Court the constitutionality of the Bicameral Conference Committee’s decision to increase unprogrammed funds in the 2025 national budget to ₱531.6 billion. Pimentel argues that the Constitution prohibits Congress from augmenting appropriations beyond what the executive recommends.
Pimentel’s interpretation is clear: the term “appropriations” does not differentiate between programmed and unprogrammed funds. He has previously raised this issue before the Supreme Court, emphasizing that increasing unprogrammed appropriations in the final budget version beyond the President’s recommendations is unconstitutional. This practice, he asserts, is being repeated in the 2025 budget with an increase of ₱373 billion.
Sen. Grace Poe, however, clarified that the issue of unprogrammed funds was discussed with the technical working group. She explained that while resources are limited, numerous programs need funding. Consequently, certain projects are categorized under unfunded, unprogrammed appropriations. Poe emphasized that unprogrammed funds are not part of the total budget but can be appropriated by the President based on specific criteria, such as extra government collections or loan proceeds.
Meanwhile, the ratified national version of the General Appropriations Bill (GAB) has come under fire for moving the country further away from true progress. Kabataan Party-list Rep. Raoul Manuel raised serious concerns about funding cuts for education sector agencies and health services. He expressed surprise and concern that these cuts come at a time when the country is still grappling with an education crisis. He further questioned how better healthcare can be provided with the defunding of PhilHealth and the ₱25.8 trillion budget cut for the DOH.
The debate over unprogrammed funds highlights a critical issue in budgetary practices. While the need to fund various programs is undeniable, adherence to constitutional mandates is paramount. The Constitution’s provisions on appropriations are designed to ensure fiscal discipline and prevent arbitrary increases in budget allocations.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear this challenge, it is essential to uphold the principles of constitutional integrity and fiscal responsibility. The outcome of this case will have significant implications for future budgetary practices and the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.
In conclusion, the government must navigate the complexities of budget appropriations with a commitment to transparency, accountability, and adherence to constitutional mandates. Only by doing so can we ensure that public funds are allocated responsibly and in accordance with the law. ([email protected])