The Supreme Court (SC) has required Rep. Stella Luz A. Quimbo, chairperson of the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations, to appear on April 1 during the oral argument on the petition that challenged the constitutionality of the 2025 national budget.

Challenged in the petition is Republic Act No. 12116, the 2025 General Appropriations Act (GAA).

Quimbo’s appearance during the oral arguments to be held in Baguio City where the SC will be holding its traditional summer sessions was confirmed by lawyer Victor D. Rodriguez, one of the petitioners.

Also required to attend the oral arguments, Rodriguez said are the members of the technical working group of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

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 the original copies of the 2025 General Appropriations Bill (GAB) and the 2025 General Appropriations Enrolled Bill (GAEB).

Aside from Rodriguez, the other petitioners are Davao City 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 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 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.