FORMER Senate president Franklin Drilon welcomed the Supreme Court’s recognition of unprogrammed appropriations as a valid budgetary tool, but urged Congress to seek clarification on provisions he said could encroach on its constitutional authority over the national budget.
In a statement, Drilon said the Court affirmed that unprogrammed appropriations are not unconstitutional in themselves, as they serve as standby spending authority that may be used only when conditions prescribed by law are met.
However, he cautioned that parts of the ruling, as he understood them, could go beyond constitutional review by setting fiscal conditions that should be determined by Congress under the 1987 Constitution.
Drilon said seeking clarification would help define the respective powers of the judiciary, Congress and the executive branch in preparing and implementing the national budget.
He also congratulated the court for issuing the decision at a crucial stage in the preparation of the 2027 national budget.
“We look forward to seeing how the reforms will be reflected in the 2027 budget,” Drilon said.
The Supreme Court recently declared unconstitutional several provisions in the 2024, 2025 and 2026 national budgets involving unprogrammed appropriations and other special funds.
The ruling stemmed from consolidated petitions challenging the legality of certain budget provisions and changes made during congressional deliberations.
Among the provisions invalidated were a P449.5-billion increase in unprogrammed appropriations in the 2024 General Appropriations Act and provisions in the 2026 budget that allowed standby funds to be released based on excess collections from individual non-tax revenue sources or new revenue streams.
The Court reiterated that the release of unprogrammed appropriations must be based on overall government revenue collections exceeding the aggregate targets assumed in the national budget, rather than isolated revenue sources that could create an artificial surplus.
It also struck down a P17.99-billion increase in the Department of Public Works and Highways’ Special Road Fund under the 2025 budget.
Unprogrammed appropriations are standby spending authorities included in the national budget.
Unlike regular programmed appropriations, they may be released only when specified conditions are met, such as the availability of additional revenues or certain loan proceeds.
The mechanism is intended to provide flexibility in financing government programs, but its use has faced scrutiny over the size of allocations and the conditions governing their release.
Drilon, who participated in the proceedings as amicus curiae, or a friend of the court, defended the constitutionality of unprogrammed appropriations while cautioning that their implementation could violate constitutional limits.
He acknowledged that flaws or abuses in the mechanism might require corrective measures.
However, Drilon said Congress should expressly establish the standards through legislation, with the Court determining whether those standards comply with the Constitution.
Identifying a constitutional defect does not necessarily authorize the Court to prescribe budget guidelines that replace conditions expressly set by lawmakers, Drilon said, warning that doing so could raise concerns about judicial legislation.
“Congress determines appropriations and their lawful conditions. The executive implements the budget within those conditions. Both functions remain subject to the Constitution,” he said.
Drilon warned that replacing funding triggers established by Congress could narrow legislative discretion and constrain the executive branch’s ability to implement the budget under the framework approved by lawmakers.
He said clarification was necessary to establish the boundaries of judicial review while preserving constitutional safeguards against the misuse of public funds.
“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.
