04/02/2025
Challenges to the constitutionality of 2025 budget
By Antonio Contreras
On the Contrary
The Manila Times
February 4, 2025
AT the outset, it should be emphasized that every citizen has the right to run to the Supreme Court and seek remedy or redress a grievance, particularly on the legality or constitutionality of any act of the executive and any of its agencies or even of Congress. This right could not be denied.
Thus, anyone has a right to question the constitutionality and legality of the 2025 General Appropriations Act (GAA).
For one, it is valid to seek clarification and, if warranted, remedy as to whether the GAA violated the law when it did not provide a subsidy to the Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (Philhealth).
Republic Act 11223, or the Universal Health Care Act of 2019, mandates government funding for health services, including subsidies for indigent members, senior citizens and persons with disabilities (PWDs). Section 10 of RA 11223 states that premium contributions for indirect contributors such as indigents, senior citizens and unemployed persons shall be fully subsidized by the government through the GAA.
In addition, Section 18 of RA 7875, or the National Health Insurance Act of 1995, as amended by RA 9241 and RA 10606, which created PhilHealth as the national health insurance program, states that the government must subsidize premium contributions for indigent families identified under the National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction.
While employed members, self-paying individuals and voluntary contributors are not automatically entitled to government subsidies, RA 11223 and RA 7875, as amended, obliged the government to subsidize the premiums of indirect contributors, which include indigents, senior citizens and PWDs. The subsidy amount is subject to budget availability and congressional approval.
There is also ground to question if, indeed, Congress is correct to align the education-related budgets for infrastructure housed under the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), as well as those for the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) and the Philippine National Police Academy (PNPA), and the Philippine Science High School System and the Science Education Institute of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST). Appropriations for these agencies and activities were added to the budget of the Department of Education (DepEd), the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (Tesda), and the state universities and colleges (SUCs), the total amount of which is now being used to show that the total budget for education has the highest allocation. This, according to Malacañang and Congress, has made the GAA compliant with the constitutional requirement. A case filed would provide the Court the opportunity to rule, once and for all if this interpretation is correct.
While the issue being raised by some sectors about the alleged unconstitutionality of the GAA providing appropriations higher than that requested by the president has already been addressed, anyone is still free to request the Court to revisit the issue. Note that Congress has the "power of the purse" and can increase, decrease, or realign proposed appropriations. Article VI, Section 25(1) of the Constitution allows Congress to modify the budget but prohibits it from increasing appropriations for the Office of the President beyond what was proposed.
Congress can increase the budget for certain agencies, programs or projects as long as the government has funds to support the increase, that there is no reallocation of funds for unconstitutional purposes such as lump-sum allocations declared unconstitutional in previous Supreme Court rulings, and that the increase is justifiable, such as additional funding for education, health and infrastructure.
Davao City Rep. Isidro Ungab is challenging the 2025 GAA by focusing on the presence of what he and others claim to be "blank" budget items. Ungab, joined by other persons and groups, claims that the bicameral conference committee report contained unspecified or "blank" budget items. He argues that this is a violation of the constitutional requirement for a detailed and itemized budget which can potentially allow post-enactment modifications that could bypass the scrutiny of Congress.
For Ungab, the inclusion of blank appropriations prevents legislators and the public from scrutinizing how government funds will be spent. This may open the door to misuse and discretionary spending, which contradicts the principles of good governance and fiscal responsibility enshrined in the Constitution.
It allegedly opens the possibility for "post-enactment interventions," which the Supreme Court has already ruled unconstitutional in the 2013 Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) case, which barred lawmakers from modifying or controlling funds after budget enactment. Ungab argues that the "blank" items could be filled in later, allowing for post-enactment intervention.
Ungab further argues that the alleged presence of "blank" items violates the "separation of powers" principle between the executive and legislative branches of government. This is premised on the principle that the GAA must provide clear and specific appropriations for the executive branch to implement. Ungab opined that the alleged "blank" items blur the line between legislative approval and executive implementation, which may lead to an unconstitutional delegation of power. Ungab believes that the bicameral conference committee did not properly review or justify the inclusion of blank appropriations. This allegedly undermined legislative due process and could be a basis for invalidating parts of the budget law.
Unfortunately, Ungab's arguments are actually the least potent from the grounds that can be used to question the legality and constitutionality of the 2025 GAA. Its premise is patently groundless, considering that the "blanks" appeared not in the GAA but in the bicameral conference committee report. There are no "blanks" in the GAA, which was signed by the president, albeit partially vetoed. Thus, there is no possibility for post-enactment appropriations or blank items to be filled out later, as feared.
Unlike the other grounds, particularly on whether the GAA may have violated RA 11223 and RA 7875, as amended, when it did not provide subsidies to PhilHealth, as well as on whether the constitutional provision on prioritizing education was really upheld, it looks like any petition focusing on the "blanks" in the budget is, well, a blank bullet.
