The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for April 8 and 22, 2026, to address four consolidated petitions challenging the constitutionality of unprogrammed funds and special accounts in the national budgets for 2024, 2025, and 2026.

A preliminary conference will be held earlier on February 4, 2026, at the Supreme Court in Manila to prepare for the Baguio sessions.

Petitioners, including high-profile legislators and taxpayer groups, seek to nullify budget adjustments made by Bicameral Conference Committees, alleging they unconstitutionally inflated the national budget.

The High Court will review three years of fiscal policy under these specific cases:

• 2024 GAA: Former Representative Edcel Lagman, Senator Koko Pimentel, and other lawmakers seek to void a PHP 449.5 billion insertion in unprogrammed appropriations. They argue that Congress is constitutionally barred from increasing the total budget recommended by the President.

• 2025 GAA: The group Filipinos for Peace, Justice, and Progress Movement Inc. (FPJPM) is challenging upward adjustments to Special Accounts in the General Fund. This includes a controversial jump in the DPWH Special Road Fund, which allegedly ballooned from PHP 16.756 billion to PHP 34.748 billion during bicameral deliberations.

• 2026 GAA: Most recently, Representatives Edgar Erice and Leila de Lima filed a petition to strike down unprogrammed fund provisions in the current year's budget. They argue that these funds lack clear, identified sources of financing, effectively creating a "budget within a budget" that evades transparency.

The petitions argue that these "bicameral insertions" bypass transparency and violate the constitutional rule that Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the President.

The High Court's ruling will determine if these multi-billion peso "standby funds" are a legal fiscal tool or a violation of the constitution.