Drilon calls for balance in unprogrammed funds ruling

By Francis Allan L. Angelo

Former Senate President Franklin M. Drilon welcomed the Supreme Court’s recognition of unprogrammed appropriations as a valid budgetary tool but urged Congress to seek clarification on portions of the ruling that may encroach on its constitutional budgeting authority.

Based on his reading of the decision, Drilon said unprogrammed appropriations are not unconstitutional in themselves.

Such appropriations provide standby spending authority that may be exercised only when the funding conditions prescribed by law are met.

The Supreme Court said unprogrammed appropriations require clear limits and safeguards to protect fiscal discipline, transparency, and accountability.

In its Oct. 20 announcement, the Court said Congress violated the constitutional budget ceiling when it increased unprogrammed appropriations in the 2024 General Appropriations Act by PHP 449.5 billion.

The Court also struck down the 2025 national budget over a PHP 17.99 billion increase in the Department of Public Works and Highways’ Special Road Fund.

It separately found that a PHP 12.75 billion increase in certain agencies’ Special Accounts in the General Fund violated the Administrative Code.

For the 2026 budget, the Court invalidated Special Provisions 1(a) and 1(b) under the chapter on unprogrammed appropriations.

The provisions allowed standby funds to be released based on excess collections from individual nontax revenue sources or newly approved revenue sources.

The Court ruled that unprogrammed appropriations should be triggered only when aggregate revenue collections exceed the government’s overall revenue targets.

Drilon said seeking clarification is appropriate because the ruling, as written, may go beyond constitutional review by prescribing fiscal conditions that should be left to Congress’ best judgment under the 1987 Constitution.

He said the ruling affects Congress’ authority to determine appropriations and the conditions governing their use.

Drilon also congratulated the Court, saying the decision was released 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.

Drilon served as an amicus curiae, or friend of the court, during proceedings on the consolidated petitions challenging provisions of the 2024, 2025, and 2026 national budgets.

He defended the constitutionality of unprogrammed appropriations while warning that their implementation could violate constitutional limits.

Drilon acknowledged that flaws or abuses in the mechanism may require correction.

However, he said the standards addressing those problems should be expressly imposed by Congress through legislation, with the Court determining whether the standards comply with the Constitution.

For Drilon, identifying a constitutional defect does not necessarily authorize the Court to write budget guidelines that would replace the conditions enacted by Congress.

Doing so, he warned, raises 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,” Drilon said.

Replacing the funding trigger enacted by Congress could narrow legislative discretion and restrict the Executive’s ability to implement the budget under the framework approved by lawmakers, he said.

Drilon said clarification would help define 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.