The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) has asked the Supreme Court (SC) another five days or until Feb. 27 to submit the government’s answer to the petition that challenged the constitutionality of the 2025 national budget under Republic Act No. 12116, the 2025 General Appropriations Act (GAA).
Last Feb. 4, the SC directed the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Office of the Executive Secretary -- the respondents in the petition -- to submit their comments on the petition in 10 days from receipt of notice.
The SC also required the respondents to submit not later than noon on Monday, Feb. 24, original copies of the 2025 General Appropriations Bill (GAB) and the 2025 General Appropriations Enrolled Bill (GAEB).
Solicitor General Menardo I. Guevarra on Sunday, Feb. 23, said the government will submit the original copies of the GAB and GAEB on Monday, Feb. 24.
Aside from the comment and the submission of the required documents, the SC decided to conduct oral arguments on the petition filed by former executive secretary Victor D. Rodriguez, Rep. Isidro T. Ungab, Rogelio A. Mendoza, Benito O. Ching Jr., Redemberto R. Villanueva, Roseller S. Dela Pena, Santos V. Catubay and Dominic C. M. Solis.
The oral arguments will be conducted on April 1 in Baguio City where the SC will hold its traditional summer sessions.
In seeking a five-day extension, the OSG told the SC that it received the resolution to file comment on Feb. 12 and thus, it has until Feb. 22 to comply.
“Although the draft of the said comment has already been finished, it is still undergoing further revision and/or correction before it can be filed,” the OSG said through Solicitor General Guevarra, Assistant Solicitors General Marissa B. Dela Cruz Galandines and Samantha P. Camitan, and Assistant Solicitor Justin Ryan D. Morilla.
The motion for extension was filed last Friday, Feb. 21. It was not known immediately if it was granted by the SC, although motions for extension to file comment are normally granted if the period sought is reasonable.
The petitioners told the SC that RA 12116 violated the constitutional provisions under Article II, Section 15; Article VI, Section 25(1); and Article XIV, Section 5(5).
They said that RA 12116 is unconstitutional for violating Article II, Section 15 of the Constitution in relation to Sections 10, 11, and 37 of the Universal Health Care Act (UHCA) under RA 11223.
They also said that the 2025 GAA violated Article VI, Section 25(1) of the Constitution when the respondents aligned the proposed appropriations under the 2024 National Expenditure Program (NEP), which resulted in an increase on the proposed budget appropriations for Congress and other line agencies.
At the same time, they said the GAA violated Article XIV, Section 5 (5) of the Constitution as the budget appropriations to the education sector were merely bloated to give the impression of a “superficial adherence to the constitutional mandate” to assign the highest budgetary priority to education.
They also pointed out that the GAA violated Article VI, Section 27 of the Constitution when the Bicameral Conference Committee submitted a report with blank items on the General Appropriations Bill (GAB).
“The Bicameral Conference Committee committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess jurisdiction when it signed the committee report on 2025 National Budget filled with blanks,” they added.
In an advisory, the SC said the preliminary conference in preparation for the oral arguments will be held on Feb. 28 at the SC’s session hall in Manila.
The SC said that if the lawyers intend to present audiovisual materials, they must submit manifestations and furnish the court with digital and physical copies of audiovisual materials not later than noon on Feb. 24.
It also said that other manifestations, additional comments, or motions may be filed before personally or via electronic mail at efile_jro.sc@judiciary.gov.ph on or before noon of Feb. 24.
“The Court reserves the right to require the parties to submit other documents after the conduct of the preliminary conference,” it added.
Also in the advisory, the SC said the substantive issues to be tackled during the oral arguments are:
Whether RA 12116 or the 2025 General Appropriations Act violates Section 15, Article 11 of the Constitution in relation to Sections 10 to 11 and 37of RA 11223, the Universal Health Care Act.
Whether the 2025 GAA, which increased the budget of the Senate and the House of Representatives, violates Section 25(1), Article VI of the Constitution which provides the increase of appropriations recommended by the President through the National Expenditure Program.
Whether the 2025 GAA violates Section 5(5), Article XIV of the Constitution which mandates the highest budgetary priority to be given to education.
Whether the 2025 GAA violates Section Section 27, Article VI of the Constitution when the members of the Bicameral Conference Committee – formed to reconcile the conflicting provisions between the House and the Senate versions of the General Appropriations Bill (GAB) – submitted a Report on the GAB with blank items.