Government lawyers have asked the Supreme Court (SC) to dismiss “for fatal procedural defect and for utter lack of merit” the petition that challenged the constitutionality of the country’s 2025 national budget.
In an 89-page comment filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), the SC was told that the petition “does not represent a genuine concern for constitutional integrity but appears to be an attempt to merely impede the implementation of a law that is vital to the nation's progress and the well-being of its people.”
Challenged in the petition is Republic Act No. 12116, the 2025 General Appropriations Act (GAA).
The petitioners are lawyer Victor D. Rodriguez, 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.
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).
Oral arguments on the petition were set by the SC on April 1 in Baguio City where the High Court traditionally holds its summer sessions.
Also, the SC has required Rep. Stella Luz A. Quimbo, chairperson of the House of Representatives (HOR) Committee on Appropriations, to appear on April 1 during the oral arguments, together with the members of the technical working group of the Senate and the HOR.
In its comment signed by Solicitor General Menardo I. Guevarra and several assistant solicitors general and associate solicitors, the OSG asked the SC to dismiss allegations that budget should be invalidated because of alleged "blanks" in some items, particularly in copies of the Bicameral Conference Committee (BCC) report.
"It is the enrolled bill, not the Committee Report, which is definitive and binding on other branches of government. Any previous version of a bill is internal to Congress and is not actionable," the OSG said.
It noted that the allegations on the supposed blanks pertain to the budget allocations of certain agencies.
The OSG said: “As previously discussed, the BCC was aware of the final amounts to be allocated to these agencies and the only remaining matter was the final ministerial computation of these allegations. Hence, such allegations pertain to the internal rules of Congress and its conference committees, particularly the procedure by which it consolidates its allocations and finalizes its computations. Petitioners do not, in fact, allege that the supposed blanks were determined by persons other than the people's duly elected representatives.”
It added:
"It must be emphasized that the bills of have already been passed into law. Congress has already ratified the work of the BCC by approving the BCC report and indicating the proper approvals, attestations, and certifications in the enrolled bill. Such passage into law indicates that the bills that eventually became RA 12116 were indeed passed by Congress. As held by this Honorable Court what is important is that its report is subsequently approved by the respective houses of Congress.
“The enactment process of RA 12116 has decisively upheld the system of checks and balances that is integral to our democratic framework. The President's exercise of veto power over specific items within the bill underscores the executive's crucial role in ensuring that appropriations align with national priorities and upheld fiscal discipline.
The 2025 GAA was signed by President Marcos on Dec. 30, 2024. The President vetoed over P194 billion in line items he deemed inconsistent with his administration’s priorities.
The petitioners against the national budget 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 for the April 1 oral arguments, 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 --ether 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.