Former Senate President Franklin M. Drilon has called on Congress to seek clarification of the Supreme Court's ruling on unprogrammed appropriations, warning that portions of the decision risk intruding on lawmakers' constitutional authority over the national budget.

In a statement, Mr. Drilon said the Court was correct to recognize that unprogrammed appropriations are not unconstitutional in themselves. However, he questioned provisions of the ruling that, in his view, could allow the judiciary to prescribe fiscal conditions that should fall within Congress's domain.

"Congress determines appropriations and their lawful conditions. The Executive implements the budget within those conditions. Both functions remain subject to the Constitution," he said.

Mr. Drilon, who served as amicus curiae in the proceedings, argued that Congress should establish safeguards against abuses of unprogrammed appropriations through legislation, leaving the Court to determine whether such measures comply with the Constitution.

The Supreme Court, in its Oct. 7 decision, ruled that unprogrammed appropriations must be subject to clear limits and safeguards to ensure fiscal discipline, transparency, and accountability. The Court declared unconstitutional the P449.5-billion increase in unprogrammed appropriations under the 2024 General Appropriations Act (GAA), which pushed total appropriations beyond the amount recommended by the President. It also voided the 2025 GAA over Congress's P17.99-billion increase in the Department of Public Works and Highways' Special Road Fund. Taken together, the rulings span three consecutive annual budget laws — the 2024, 2025, and 2026 GAAs.

The Court likewise struck down provisions of the 2026 GAA that allowed the release of unprogrammed funds based on new or excess revenues without requiring total government revenues to exceed the target. Unprogrammed appropriations function as standby funds: Congress authorizes them in the annual budget, but they may be released only once the conditions it sets — such as revenues exceeding targets — are met.

Mr. Drilon acknowledged that flaws or abuses in the funding mechanism may require correction, but maintained that identifying a constitutional defect does not automatically authorize the Court to formulate budget guidelines that replace conditions expressly set by lawmakers. Such intervention, he said, could raise concerns about judicial legislation and narrow Congress's discretion in determining how public funds may be appropriated.

He also cautioned that replacing funding conditions enacted by Congress could restrict the Executive's ability to implement the national budget under the framework approved by lawmakers.

Mr. Drilon said clarification was necessary to establish the limits of judicial review and to protect the budgetary powers of future Congresses and presidents.

"The concern therefore extends beyond one administration or one budget. It involves the scope of the budget powers available to future Congresses and Presidents," he said.

He also welcomed the timing of the decision, which comes as the government prepares the 2027 national budget — the first spending plan to be drafted under the Court's limits and safeguards.

"We look forward to seeing how the reforms will be reflected in the 2027 budget," he said.

— Kaizzer Angela Marie V. Manuba