The Supreme Court (SC) will continue its oral arguments starting at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, July 14, on four consolidated petitions that challenged the constitutionality of the unprogrammed funds and special accounts in the 2024, 2025, and 2026 national budgets.

Despite the pleas for a temporary restraining order (TRO) sought by the petitioners, the SC did not grant the relief which was opposed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), the government’s lawyer.

The legal debates started last April 7 on four petitions -- G.R. No. 271059, Rep. Edcel C. Lagman et al. vs Congress of the Philippines et al.; G.R. No. 271347, Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III and Pantaleon “Bebot” Alvarez vs Lucas P. Bersamin and Amenah F. Pangandaman; G.R. No. E-02472, Filipinos for Peace, Justice and Progress Movement, Inc. (FPJPM) vs House of Representatives et al.; and G.R. No. E-04036, Edgar R. Erice and Leila de Lima v. Senate of the Philippines et al.

The petitioners – legislators, taxpayers, and concerned citizens – asked the SC to nullify the adjustments made by Congress’ Bicameral Conference Committees that inflated the national budget for three consecutive years starting in 2024.

A total of P150.9 billion in unprogrammed appropriations (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 January 5.

In their petition, former Albay First District congressman Edcel C. Lagman, Camarines Sur Rep. Gabriel H. Bordado Jr., Basilan Rep. Mujiv S. Hataman, Sen. Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III, and Rep. Pantaleon “Bebot” Alvarez seek to declare as unconstitutional the bicameral insertion of P449.5 billion in the 2024 GAA.

The (FPJPM) assailed the amendments allegedly made to the Special Accounts in the General Fund and other appropriations in the 2025 GAA.

It also alleged that the 2025 GAA increased the line-item appropriation for the Department of Public Works and Highways’ (DPWH) Special Road Fund from P16.756 billion to P34.748 billion.

Caloocan City 2nd District Rep. Edgar R. Erice and Mamamayang Liberal Party-list Rep. Leila de Lima challenged the constitutionality of the P150.9 billion UA in the 2026 national budget.

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 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."

During one of the oral arguments, the SC acknowledged the need to urgently resolve the consolidated petitions.

Former Senate president Franklin Drilon urged the SC to resolve the petitions immediately because the budget proposal for 2027 is expected to be submitted to Congress after July this year.

Acknowledging Drilon’s request, Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo told the parties in the four cases: “We’d also like to let you know that the Court is conscious of the timelines in the budget process.”

Drilon is one of the amici curiae (friends of the court) invited by the SC to help in resolving the issues raised in the petitions.

“We are making this manifestation to respectfully urge the Court to decide on this case as early as possible because the decision of this Court will provide guidance not only to the government but to the public in general as to this anima of unprogrammed appropriations,” Drilon said.