SC sets oral arguments on 2 petitions vs unprogrammed appropriations in 2024 GAA
The Supreme Court (SC) has decided to conduct oral arguments on the petitions that challenged the constitutionality of the unprogrammed appropriations (UA) in the 2024 national budget that would transfer to the national treasury hundreds of billions of pesos in reserve funds of government owned and controlled corporations.
One of the petitions alleged as unconstitutional the UA that would transfer to the national treasury the P89.9 billion reserve funds of the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth).
The other petition wanted the SC to declare void the amount of P449.5 billion inserted in the unprogrammed appropriations under the 2024 General Appropriations Act (GAA), and Section 1 (d) of XLIII of the Unprogrammed Appropriations in the 2024 GAA.
During a press briefing on Monday, Sept. 9, SC Spokesperson Atty. Camille Sue Mae L. Ting said the oral arguments will be held on Jan. 14, 2025.
In the meantime, Ting said that the pleas for temporary restraining order (TRO) may still be tackled and resolved by the SC any time before the oral arguments on the petitions that have been consolidated into one case.
In the case of PhilHealth, the SC had required the government to comment on the petition filed by Sen. Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III; Ernesto Ofracio, Junice Lirza D. Melgar, Cielo Magno, Ma. Dominga Cecilia B. Padilla, Dante B. Gatmaytan, and Ibarra Gutierrez; Sentro ng Mga Nagkakaisa at Progresibong Manggagawa, Inc.; Public Services Labor Independent Confederation Foundation, Inc.; and the Philippine Medical Association. They said they represent both the direct and indirect PhilHealth contributors.
Solicitor General Menardo I. Guevarra, in the government’s comment, asked the SC to dismiss the petition filed by Pimentel’s group.
Guevarra said that contrary to the claim of the petitioners, Section 1(d) of XLIII of the GAA 2024 “is not a rider” and does not violate Section 25 (2) and Section 26(1) of Article VI of the Constitution.
He pointed out that the provision in the 2024 GAA does not amend nor violate provisions of Republic Act (RA) 11223 or the Universal Health Care Act (UHCA); and RA 10351 and RA 11346, the Sin Tax Reform Laws.
He also said that Section 1(d) of the 2024 GAA is actually “a valid act of appropriation” and does not violate the people’s right to health.
On Department of Finance (DOF) Circular No. 003-2024, Guevarra said it was validly issued in accordance with Section 1 (d) of the 2024 GAA.
He said the circular is not a violation of Section 29 (3) Article VI of the Constitution which states: “All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a special fund and paid out for such purpose only.”
The second petition was filed by Bayan Muna Chairman Neri Colmenares, Bayan Muna Vice Chairman Teodoro A. Casiño, Bayan Muna Executive Vice President Carlos Isagani T. Zarate, and former Bayan Muna representative Ferdinand R. Gaite.
Named respondents in the petition of Colmenares’ group were President Marcos, Executive Secretary Lucas P. Bersamin, the Senate of the Philippines, and the House of Representatives.
The group wanted the SC to nullify the Presidential Certification of Urgency for House Bill No. 8980 or the General Appropriations Bill absent the existence of any calamity or emergency under Article VI, Section 26(2) of the Constitution.
It asked the SC to void the amount of P449.5 billion inserted in the Unprogrammed Appropriations under the 2024 General Appropriations Act (GAA), and Section 1 (d) of XLIII of the Unprogrammed Appropriations in the 2024 GAA.
The SC required the respondents to comment in 10 days upon receipt of the notice.