The Supreme Court (SC) will hold starting Tuesday, April 7, oral arguments on four consolidated petitions that challenged the constitutionality of the unprogrammed funds and special accounts in the 2024, 2025, and 2026 national budgets.

The arguments will start at 9:30 a.m. at the SC’s full court session hall.

Originally set in Baguio City during its traditional summer sessions, the SC decided to conduct the legal debates in Manila and cancelled its summer sessions to save on fuel and other transport costs.

The second day of the oral arguments is set on April 21, also in Manila.

The SC’s Office of the Spokesperson said that set for arguments are four consolidated 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. 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.

In the petitions docketed as G.R. Nos. 271059 and 271347, 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 General Appropriations Act (GAA).

In G.R. No. E-02472, the Filipinos for Peace, Justice, and Progress Movement, Inc. (FPJPM) assailed the amendments allegedly made to the Special Accounts in the General Fund and other appropriations in the 2025 GAA.

The FPJPM 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, in G.R. No. E-04036, 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.

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."

Earlier, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) – as legal counsel of the respondents in the petitions – sought the dismissal of the consolidated petitions.

In one of its comments, the OSG told the SC: “Unprogrammed appropriations are equally vital as programmed appropriations. However, the reality is that the government’s resources are finite; it is unable to guarantee and fund all its intended expenditures within a fiscal year. Thus, the government is constrained to relegate some of the planned projects, activities, and programs as unprogrammed appropriations, which are dependent on additional funding from a contingent source.”

In opposing the pleas for temporary restraining order (TRO) which was not granted by the SC, the OSG said: “A TRO would mean that should the government obtain the much-needed additional funding within the fiscal year, it cannot use them to implement the awaiting unprogrammed appropriations.”

“This is highly impractical and uneconomical, nay wasteful. Ultimately, it is the public who would suffer from the delay or non-implementation of standby projects, activities, and programs that have clearly found their funding,” it also told the SC.