The Manila Times
MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court was urged to settle the constitutionality of unprogrammed appropriations and clarify the limits of congressional and executive authority under judicial review, as oral arguments continued on Tuesday on consolidated petitions challenging provisions of the national budget. Appearing as amicus curiae, former Senate president Franklin Drilon told the Court that the cases present “questions of first impression,” requiring the tribunal to determine both the validity of including unprogrammed appropriations in the General Appropriations Act (GAA) and the extent of its power to review alleged grave abuse of discretion by the political branches. Drilon said unprogrammed appropriations have long been part of the national budget, with Department of Budget and Management records tracing their use to 1989 and statutory references dating back to 1971. He noted that successive administrations and Congresses had operated under the assumption that such appropriations were constitutional, with limited judicial scrutiny in past rulings. He argued that, in principle, unprogrammed appropriations may be considered a form of special appropriation allowed under the Constitution, as they identify specific purposes and were released only upon certification that funds were available or could be raised through revenues. “As a standby authority contingent on revenue windfalls, it does not increase the president’s recommended spending ceiling, assuming conditions are strictly followed,” Drilon told the Court. He added that classifying items as programmed or unprogrammed falls within Congress’ power of the purse, describing it as a policy decision balancing immediate funding needs against uncertain fiscal conditions. However, Drilon flagged concerns over recent practices, particularly the inclusion of regular agency operations and recurring expenses under unprogrammed appropriations. He said such items are foreseeable and should instead be covered by programmed funds. He also raised issues with the current framework for releasing unprogrammed funds, noting that changes in budget provisions since 2015 allow releases based on excess collections from any single revenue source, rather than overall fiscal performance. “To release unprogrammed funds simply because there was an excess in one source of revenue is an unsound fiscal management measure,” he said, warning that it could undermine the government’s budget plan and contribute to fiscal deficits. Drilon urged the Court to revisit existing interpretations and adopt stricter standards, including requiring that excess revenues be measured against the aggregate targets set in the budget of expenditures and sources of financing (BESF), rather than isolated sources. He emphasized that unprogrammed appropriations should be triggered only by “genuine windfalls” and only after the programmed budget has been fully funded. “If one source exceeds the target while total revenues fall short, then strictly speaking, no funds are truly available for release,” he said. While maintaining that unprogrammed appropriations are not inherently unconstitutional, Drilon warned that their misuse could effectively expand the national budget beyond what was approved by Congress. “In this perfect storm, the violation is not found in the text of the law, but in the arithmetic of its execution,” he said.
Go to News Site