Former Senate President Franklin M. Drilon told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that the constitutional issue surrounding unprogrammed appropriations lies in how the funds are released and used, not in Congress' authority to include them in the national budget.
Appearing as a friend of the court during oral arguments on petitions challenging provisions in the 2024, 2025 and 2026 General Appropriations Acts (GAAs), Drilon said Congress has plenary authority over appropriations unless expressly restricted by the Constitution.
“There is no question about the inclusion of unprogrammed appropriations,” he told the court. The questions legitimately arise in their implementation, he added.
Associate Justice Raul B. Villanueva asked whether unprogrammed appropriations effectively bypass the Constitution's requirement that special appropriations be enacted through a separate law supported by a certification from the National Treasurer that funds are available.
Drilon replied that unprogrammed appropriations are part of the National Expenditure Program submitted by the Executive before being enacted into the GAA. He said contingent funding sources, such as excess revenue collections and loan proceeds, provide the legal basis for their eventual release.
“The Constitution does not provide for the unprogrammed appropriations,” he said. “It is our respectful submission that this is a plenary power of Congress.”
He stressed, however, that the Executive must release such funds only when overall government revenues exceed targets. He argued that abuses stemmed from authorities relying on individual revenue sources instead of the government's total revenue position.
Asked linking unprogrammed appropriations to irregularities in flood control spending changed his view, Drilon said the misuse did not negate Congress' constitutional authority to provide for such appropriations.
Meanwhile, Albay Rep. Jose Ma. Clemente “Joey” S. Salceda, who also appeared as a friend of the court, defended unprogrammed appropriations as a fiscal tool that allows the government to respond to emergencies and economic shocks.
He said existing safeguards, including Commission on Audit oversight, are sufficient and that any misuse should be addressed separately because “the misuse is not because there are unprogrammed funds.”
The Supreme Court is hearing consolidated petitions questioning the constitutionality of provisions on unprogrammed appropriations and special purpose funds in the 2024, 2025 and 2026 national budgets.
