The Supreme Court (SC), as a full court, is set to deliberate on Wednesday, Jan. 14, the petition which challenged the constitutionality of the P150.9 billion unprogrammed appropriations (UA) in the 2026 national budget.

The P150.9 billion UA was included in the P6.793 trillion national budget for 2026 under Republic Act No. 12314, the 2026 General Appropriations Act (GAA), that was signed into law by President Marcos last Jan. 5.

The petition against the UA was filed by Mamamayang Liberal (ML) Rep. Leila de Lima and Caloocan 2nd District Rep. Edgar Erice last Thursday, Jan. 8. They asked the SC to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) that would stop the disbursement of the funds for UA.

Under the 2026 GAA, the UA serves as a "standby authority" to be used only "when specific conditions are met, such as when revenue collection exceeds targets, or when additional grants or foreign funds are generated.”

But De Lima and Erice in their petition claimed that such structure “inverts the constitutional architecture of budgeting.”

They said that “instead of revenues determining expenditures, expenditures are authorized in anticipation of revenues whose existence is speculative and contingent."

Thus, they pointed out that the UA in the 2026 GAA violates Article VII, Section 22, which requires the budget to be based on actual "sources of financing."

They also said: "The constitution is unequivocal. The GAA is meant to rest on a fiscal program that is matched with identifiable sources of financing, not on spending authority dependent on contingencies that remain uncertain at the time of enactment."

At the same time, they told the SC that there is no certification from the National Treasurer that there are actual funds available for special appropriations.

"The structure of the UA is constitutionally infirm because it authorizes appropriations without the required revenue certainty contemplated by Article VI, Section 25(4). Appropriations cannot constitutionally rest on mere possibilities that are neither determinable nor certified as ‘actually available’ at the time Congress enacts the GAA," they also said.

In justifying their plea for a TRO, De Lima and Erice said: "The magnitude, contingent nature, and structure of the Unprogrammed Appropriations expose public funds to the risk of unconstitutional release."

They also said that the P150.9 billion for UA is so big that it represents a "significant portion of the national wealth" that would be impossible to recover if spent illegally.

The President had proposed P249.9 billion for UA in the 2026 National Expenditure Program (NEP). While the amount was trimmed by the House of Representatives and the Senate during their deliberations, the bicameral conference committee raised it back to P243 billion.

The President eventually vetoed P92.5 billion of the amount originally set for UA.

The SC is also expected to deliberate on Jan. 14 the motion filed by the House of Representatives (HOR) to reconsider the unanimous High Court decision that declared unconstitutional the articles of impeachment filed against Vice President Sara Duterte.

In a decision issued last July, the SC declared that the impeachment complaint is barred by the one-year rule under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution and that it violates the right to due process enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

Thus, the SC ruled that the Senate could not acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings. It declared that its decision – written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen – was immediately executory.

Vice President Duterte has asked the SC to deny HOR’s motion for reconsideration.

In her 27-page comment, Duterte said “the decision requires no factual correction: it rests on an unshaken foundation of truth.”

Through the Fortun Narvasa & Salazar law firm, Duterte challenged the validity of the HOR’s motion as it noted that the HOR is not a continuing body and that it was filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) without approval by the members of the 20th Congress.

Duterte said: “Absent this approval by the plenary, the motion is unauthorized and legally infirm. It is a nullity that usurps the institutional authority of the 20th Congress itself.”

The Vice President pointed out that based on the Orders of Business published in the website of the House from July 25, 2025 when the decision was issued by the SC until the filing of the motion on Aug. 4, 2025, the matter of seeking the reconsideration of the High Court’s decision was not submitted for the deliberation and voting of the plenary of the 20th Congress.

She branded the other arguments raised by the HOR in its motion as “mere diversions.”

These include the claim of the HOR that the due process requirements laid down in the decision are not sanctioned by the Constitution and “unduly interferes with its sole authority to conduct impeachment proceedings.”

She also countered the arguments that the SC misconstrued the chronology of events, in that the archiving of the first three impeachment complaints preceded the filing of the fourth impeachment complaint; its allegation that the SC wrongly stated that the fourth impeachment complaint was transmitted to the House without voting in plenary; and its claim that the Court erred in ruling that the prior complaints were effectively dismissed due to the adjournment of Congress.