By Erika Mae P. Sinaking and Francessca S. Abalos | BusinessWorld

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) has advised the Marcos administration to temporarily hold off on releasing 2026 budget allocations covered by a recent Supreme Court ruling, while it prepares to challenge the decision's restrictions on unprogrammed funds.

Speaking at a Palace briefing on Thursday, Solicitor General Darlene Marie B. Berberabe said the OSG will submit a motion for reconsideration (MR) to the High Court by Nov. 4, seeking to clarify the boundary lines between judicial oversight and executive authority.

The legal challenge centers on the execution of the 2026 national budget, following a Supreme Court en banc ruling (a decision issued by the full court) that declared certain unprogrammed appropriation provisions in previous budgets unconstitutional.

"On our part, what we will advise the DBM (Department of Budget and Management) and the Executive is to take a position to hold off for now, since it is expected that this will be decided soon," she said, noting the Executive's effort to keep the impact on the 2026 budget "minimal and not that significant."

"What are clearly covered by the decision, hold off for now, as a matter of good faith and because we do not want to non-comply," she added.

Ms. Berberabe did not specify which funds or programs would be held back, saying the OSG and the DBM are scheduled to meet next week to determine the affected line items.

The ruling

The Supreme Court held that congressional increases to unprogrammed appropriations and special funds in previous national budgets exceeded constitutional limits, including a P449.5-billion increase in 2024 and a P17.99-billion addition in 2025.

Under the government's budget framework, unprogrammed appropriations are contingent line items that can only be funded once identified revenue sources — such as excess collections or approved borrowings — actually materialize, making them standby funds rather than guaranteed spending.

While affirming that unprogrammed funds are not unconstitutional per se, the Court imposed strict guardrails, barring lump-sum allocations and enforcing a constitutional budget ceiling. The ruling applied the doctrine of operative fact to protect completed expenditures in previous fiscal years, but permanently prohibited the Executive from implementing specific unprogrammed special provisions in the 2026 budget.

Ms. Berberabe stressed that the decision is not yet final and that filing an appeal allows the administration to seek legal clarifications. The purpose of the motion, she explained, is to ensure that vital public services and project execution under the 2026 budget are not needlessly paralyzed while the OSG seeks guidance on spending guardrails.

Reiterating the administration's position, she said the motion seeks to uphold the constitutional separation of powers, arguing that budget preparation, allocation, and execution are explicitly assigned to the political branches — the Executive and Congress.

"As for 2026 [budget], because [the decision] just came out and it is not yet final, there is no problem there. I think there are more questions regarding 2024 and 2025, because the finding [in] 2026 had the least impact," she said.

"So, we are just ensuring that the impact on the execution of projects until December won't be that significant," she added.

Unlikely reversal

Michael Henry Ll. Yusingco, a senior research fellow at the Ateneo Policy Center, described the filing of a motion for reconsideration as "almost always perfunctory" and "more likely just a matter of course."

"The losing party will always disagree with the decision, and an MR is a due process mechanism afforded to him to articulate those disagreements," Mr. Yusingco told BusinessWorld in a Facebook chat. He said there is likely no expectation that the decision will be overturned or altered.

For the verdict to genuinely shape future fiscal governance, he said, "the decision must be brought down to the community level" through media explainers and public discussions.

"Voters and taxpayers must use this decision to pressure lawmakers not to raid the public coffers during budget deliberations," Mr. Yusingco said, adding that public oversight is only effective if citizens fully comprehend the ruling.

Senate weighs adjustments

While the OSG readies its challenge, the DBM and the Senate on Thursday discussed how to adjust increased allocations and unprogrammed appropriations in the House-approved 2027 budget.

At a Senate hearing, Budget Secretary Kim Robert C. de Leon told senators they can still raise budgets for programs, projects, and agencies as long as these do not exceed President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr.'s proposal for programmed and unprogrammed appropriations. He said, however, that the ruling still needs to be clarified.

Senate President Sherwin T. Gatchalian and Senator Joseph Victor G. Ejercito, who chairs the Senate Committee on Finance, sought clarification from the DBM on how to apply the rulings to the Senate version of the 2027 budget, citing the urgency as committee-level budget deliberations near completion.

Based on the DBM's interpretation, the ruling on the 2024 and 2025 budgets merely prohibits increasing the ceiling, or totality, the expenditure program, Mr. de Leon said, citing the 2001 case of Sarmiento v. Treasurer of the Philippines.

Both Mr. Gatchalian and Mr. De Leon acknowledged that the provisions in question were vital for foreign-assisted projects (FAPs), with the majority of their budget coming from standby funds.

Mr. De Leon also confirmed that the 2027 budget no longer includes the Strengthening Assistance for Government Infrastructure and Social Programs (SAGIP), which the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional, and lists fewer items under unprogrammed appropriations. He assured senators that the DBM is ready to provide Congress with detailed breakdowns of FAP allocations and to accept additional safeguards to guide the release of unprogrammed funds.

Recall debate

Makabayan bloc lawmakers, meanwhile, urged the House of Representatives to recall the House-approved 2027 General Appropriations Bill, the proposed legislation setting the government's annual spending program.

Mr. Ejercito appealed to the chamber not to recall the 2027 budget, warning that doing so could delay the measure further. "If that happens, in my opinion, there is a large chance… that we will not be able to pass the budget by year-end," he said.

The finance chairman said several events could affect the timeline, namely the 2027 Association of Southeast Asian Nations Summit and the resumption of Vice-President Sara Duterte-Caprio's impeachment trial. He maintained that disagreements over budget allocations and provisions that violate the Supreme Court ruling can be adjusted during the bicameral conference — the stage where House and Senate negotiators reconcile their versions of the budget — which will be transparent and televised.

Source: BusinessWorld