2025 budget not the only case to reach SC
- FactRakers
- 4 minutes ago
- 3 min read
Petitions challenging certain provisions of the General Appropriations Act (GAA) have been filed before the Supreme Court in various years, including one in 2025 that Sen. Rodante Marcoleta incorrectly claimed was the only case that reached the high tribunal.
Just last year, a group of petitioners led by then Sen. Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III and the Philippine Medical Association (PMA) filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to block the transfer of P89.9 billion in unused funds from the Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (PhilHealth) to the national treasury.
Marcoleta said in an interview on NET25’s “Sa Ganang Mamamayan” on Oct. 17 that only the 2025 national budget reached the Supreme Court:
Ayan, nakita mo naman ang nangyari sa 2025. Ito lamang, ito lamang ang budget na umabot sa Korte Suprema, sa aking pagkakaalam. Wala namang, wala namang pumunta sa Korte Suprema para kuwestiyunin ang budget na ito eh (There, you saw what happened in the 2025 [budget]. This is, this is the only budget that reached the Supreme Court, to my knowledge. No one, no one goes to the Supreme Court to question the [national] budget). [15:48 mark]
He was referring to the petition filed last Jan. 27 by Victor Rodriguez, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s former executive secretary, and other individuals against the House of Representatives, Senate and Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin challenging the entire 2025 national budget for allegedly being enacted with an incomplete bicameral report containing “blank items.”
Similar to the petition filed by Rodriguez, petitions filed in March by 1Sambayan Coalition and the Teachers’ Dignity Coalition raised the issue of violating Article XIV, Section 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution that mandates that the education sector receive the highest allocation.
1Sambayan Coalition and Sanlakas also sought to halt the Ayuda sa Kapos ang Kita Program (AKAP), which they said resembles “pork barrel,” or the discretionary funds previously allocated to lawmakers for local projects.
Pimentel and PMA’s Aug. 2, 2024 petition named the House, Senate and Department of Finance (DOF) respondents.
A month later, Bayan Muna filed a case against Bersamin challenging the constitutionality of the unprogrammed appropriations (UA) in the 2024 GAA. In mid-October last year, 1Sambayan Coalition lodged another petition against the House, seeking to nullify a similar provision on the UA and the DOF’s Circular No. 003-2024 implementing it.
The Supreme Court has previously ruled on petitions involving the national budget. Its 2013 landmark ruling in Belgica v. Ochoa struck down the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), popularly known as “pork barrel,” as unconstitutional for violating the separation of powers and accountability.
The following year, it declared the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) as partially unconstitutional for allowing crossborder fund transfers and unauthorized spending outside the GAA.
While the 2025 GAA is not the first to reach the high court, lawyer and constitutional law expert Antonio La Viña told FactRakers it was the only one to be questioned for its entirety:
Pero ang focus lang ng Belgica ay ang PDAF at hindi ang buong budget. Ganoon din ang Araullo vs Aquino na ang focus lang ay ang DAP ni Noynoy at di buong budget. Ganoon din ang ongoing case sa Philhealth funds na nilipat. Lahat ito tungkol sa budget kaya mali si Marcoleta pero tama siya na isa lang ang kaso na pangkalahatang budget ang kinukuwesyon (But the focus of Belgica was the PDAF and not the whole budget. It’s the same as Araullo vs Aquino that the only focus was the DAP of Noynoy [President Benigno Aquino III] and not the whole budget. It’s also similar to the ongoing case in the Philhealth funds that were transferred. All of this is about the budget, that’s why Marcoleta is wrong, but he is right that there is only one case that the entirety of the budget was being questioned).
Lawyer and constitutional law expert Arlene Roura said in an email that Marcoleta’s statement likely stemmed from the bicameral report:
This likely explains why Senator Marcoleta characterized it as “the only budget that reached the Supreme Court,” acknowledging the novelty of the legal theory being tested—i.e., that a potentially incomplete bicameral report may render the law constitutionally infirm.
However, she stressed that petitions against a provision on the national budget are certainly not the first:
If it were just a matter of petitions challenging the due enactment of the budget, then the current case (Victor D. Rodriguez et al. v. House of Representatives, Senate of the Philippines, and Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin, G.R. No. 277975) is certainly not the first.
A VERA Files fact-check found no blank items in the 2025 GAA, contrary to Rodriguez’s claim.
Marcoleta’s interview has gained over 204,000 views and 8,400 likes on YouTube. The live chat replays and comments were turned off. (SGL)