The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) will seek clarification and partial reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s ruling on unprogrammed appropriations, particularly the safeguards imposed on their use.
In a statement Thursday, Oct. 22, the OSG said it respects the Court’s finding that unprogrammed appropriations are not inherently unconstitutional but wants a review of certain limits affecting the budgetary powers of Congress and the executive branch.
“With utmost respect to the Court, the OSG will seek clarification and partial reconsideration of certain aspects of the Decision, particularly the guardrails prescribed for the exercise of budgetary powers,” it said.
The Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday struck down Congress’ P449.5-billion increase in unprogrammed appropriations under the 2024 national budget, along with certain provisions of the 2025 and 2026 budgets.
At a Palace briefing Thursday, Solicitor General Darlene Marie Berberabe said the OSG wants clarification on safeguards affecting the implementation of the 2026 budget.
Berberabe said the government would ask the Court to review whether some of the prescribed safeguards should be left to Congress and the executive, which have separate constitutional powers to enact and implement the national budget.
“Ang amin lamang pong gustong idiin at hilingin na repasuhin nila baka po may mga guardrails na dapat ay ipaubaya na lamang doon sa dalawang branches, which are the political branches,” Berberabe said.
The OSG acknowledged that safeguards are necessary to ensure transparency, accountability and discipline in the use of public funds.
It said, however, that a distinction must be made between requirements imposed by the Constitution and conditions that fall within the authority of the political branches.
“The OSG agrees that safeguards are essential to ensure transparency, accountability, and fiscal discipline in the use of public funds,“ the OSG said.
“The complex challenge, however, lies in distinguishing the safeguards that are required by the Constitution from those whose formulation falls within the constitutionally provided powers of Congress and the Executive,” it added.
The office said it would also study the 12 separate opinions accompanying the ruling before taking further action.
“The twelve separate opinions accompanying the Decision reflect the complexity of the constitutional questions presented and the differing judicial perspectives on their resolution. The OSG will carefully consider these opinions in its further action,” it said.
The OSG represents the government in court proceedings.
