Suit a deliberate attempt to destabilize govt – solon
DAVAO City Rep. Isidro Ungab and former executive secretary Victor Rodriguez yesterday asked the Supreme Court (SC) to declare as unconstitutional Republic Act 12116, or the General Appropriations Act of 2025.
Ungab and Rodriguez were joined in the taxpayers suit by Rogelio Mendoza, Benito Ching, Redemberto Villanueva, Roseller dela Peña, Santos Catuba and Dominic Solis, being taxpayers and members of the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth).
Named as respondents in the petition were the House of Representatives headed by Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez, Senate of the Philippines represented by Senate President Francis Escudero, and Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin.
La Union Rep. Paolo Ortega V assailed the petition, calling it a deliberate attempt to “destabilize” the government to pave the way for Vice President Sara Duterte’s eventual takeover of the government.
“The petition filed by Rep. Isidro Ungab, Atty. Vic Rodriguez, and their allies before the Supreme Court questioning provisions in the 2025 General Appropriations Act (GAA) is more than just a legal maneuver – it is a calculated political gambit that exposes their intent to obstruct progress and destabilize the administration of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.,” Ortega said.
Ungab and Rodriguez told the SC that RA 12116 should be declared as unconstitutional for violating Article II Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution in relation to Sections 10, 11 and 37 of Republic Act No. 1123, also known as the Universal Health Care Act.
“A simple perusal of the 2025 GAA would show that not a single centavo was earmarked and appropriated for PhilHealth. Quite perplexingly, the respondents justified the non-inclusion of PhilHealth in view of the more or less P600 billion reserve funds which comprises its surplus and funds placed in investments,” they said.
PhilHealth got zero government subsidy in the 2025 national budget.
“From the foregoing, it is not hard to fathom that the removal of the PhilHealth budget from the 2025 GAA would have adverse effects upon the attainment of the Universal Health Care Act’s envisioned health system reforms,” they added.
The petitioners also claimed that the 2025 GAA violated Article VI, Section 25 (1) of the Constitution when the respondents realigned the proposed appropriations under the 2024 National Expenditure Program and in effect increased the appropriations for Congress and other line agencies.
“There is an urgent need to strike down as unconstitutional RA 12116, or otherwise, the continuous implementation thereof would be irresponsible, and the untoward effects deemed as fait accompli. Furthermore, the issue involved herein is of transcendental importance as it involves the money of the People being illegally and unconstitutionally disbursed through the pretext of an invalid law,” they stressed.
Likewise, the petitioners said the 2025 GAA violated Article XIV, Section 5 (5) of the Constitution when lawmakers supposedly “bloated” the appropriations for the education sector to give the impression of a “superficial adherence to the constitutional mandate” to assign the highest budgetary priority to education.
They noted that the funding for the Philippine Military Academy, Philippine National Police Academy, and the National Defense College, which were previously under the Department of National Defense and the Department of the Interior and Local Government, were lumped under the allocation for the education sector.
Likewise, the budget for the Local Government Academy, Philippine Public Safety College, Philippine Science High School System and the Science Education Institute were also included in the education budget.
“In effect, the 2025 GAA was carefully crafted to superficially adhere to the mandate of the 1987 Constitution that the State shall assign the highest budgetary priority to the education sector,” the petitioners said.
Ungab and Rodriguez also tagged what they claimed were blank items in the budget bicameral conference committee report, which they said violated Article VI, Section 27 of the Constitution.
They likewise assailed the constitutionality of the increase in the budgets of the House and the Senate, which amounted to P33.67 billion and P13.93 billion, respectively, in the 2025 GAA.
Malacañang requested P16.35 billion for the House and P12.83 billion for the Senate under the NEP.
“Equally questionable is the fact that, notwithstanding said increase, the President failed to exercise his veto power over the budget appropriations for Congress. It is beyond cavil that a blatant increase in the budget of the Congress at that, undertaken by Congress itself is violative of the constitutional mandate,” the petitioners said.
Lastly, they said the respondents committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when they signed the committee report on 2025 national budget filled with blank spaces.
Ungab and former President Rodrigo Duterte have earlier questioned the alleged blank spaces in the budget bicameral committee report, which they said could have led to insertions that were not approved by either chamber of Congress.
Davao del Norte Rep. Pantaleon Alvarez, a former speaker and a staunch Duterte ally, said it a “crime worth billions” was committed when lawmakers left blank entries in the ratified bicameral report because in the final version of the GAA, the “blanks were suddenly gone and were replaced by considerable amounts and figures that were not approved by Congress.”
‘DESTABILIZATION’
Ortega said the real intent behind the legal challenge is to “weaken the Marcos administration and pave the way for Vice President Sara Duterte to consolidate power.”
“The narrative being constructed here is clear: sow doubt about the legitimacy of the 2025 GAA, delay its implementation and weaken the administration. It is difficult to ignore the possibility that these moves are part of a broader scheme to undermine President Marcos and position Vice President Sara Duterte for an eventual takeover,” he also said.
He added: “These tactics are divisive and dangerous, especially at a time when the Filipino people expect their leaders to focus on solutions rather than scheming. It is not just the government’s stability that is at stake – it is the trust of the people in our institutions.”
Ortega also said the move is meant to push for the reinstatement of the Vice President’s P2 billion budget in 2024 if the SC petition will lead to a reenacted budget this year.
He said the petition was filed with the end in view of reversing the congressional decision to remove P1.3 billion from the Office of the Vice President (OVP) because of the alleged lack of transparency in the use of public funds, particularly the Vice President’s confidential funds.
“Let us not mince words: thispetition is an effort to undo the decision of Congress to cut P1.3 billion from the budget of the Office of the Vice President, a decision rooted in Congress’s constitutional duty to ensure that public funds are judiciously allocated,” he said.
Ortega stressed that the move “reflects a pattern of political maneuvering aimed at creating doubt about the legitimacy of the national budget.” “The motives behind this petition are suspect, to say the least. This is not just about budgetary provisions – it is about political leverage,” he said.
Marikina Rep. Stella Quimbo, acting chair of the House Committee on Appropriations, has maintained that the GAA remains legal even if there were adjustments and corrections made at the bicameral level, since the bicameral report “explicitly authorized the technical secretariats of both the Senate and the House of Representatives to implement corrections and adjustments as required.”
When the members of the bicameral committee signed the report, all appropriations had already been determined and approved and no other changes were made, according to Quimbo.
Alvarez, who was ousted as speaker and replaced by Pampanga Rep. Gloria Arroyo in 2018, said it was wrong for Quimbo to claim that the act of filling out those blanks was merely ministerial on the part of technical staff.
“Magpasalamat tayo sa honesty ni Cong. Stella. ‘Yung pag amin niya sa nangyari, inamin niyang nagkaroon ng falsification of legislative documents. Ang parusa diyan pagkakakulong ng prision correcional kasama ang multa (Let’s thank Rep. Stella for her honesty. Her admission about what happened, she recognized that there was a falsification of legislative documents. The penalty for that is jail term of prision correcional),” he said.
Alvarez echoed the statement of former Senate President Vicente Sotto III that only Congress has the power can add or subtract from the entries in the bicameral report.
“Sa plenary dapat yan! Hindi puwede maging ministerial sa indibidwal o grupo ng congressmen. Ang tanong, yung sinuksok nila sa budget, ratified ba ‘yan ng plenary? At kung hindi, e ‘di bakit sila naglagay diyan ng amounts? (That should have been done in the plenary! That can’t be ministerial on the part of individual or a group of congressmen. The question is, what they inserted in the budget, was that ratified by the plenary? If not, why didn’t they indicate the amounts?)” he said.
Quimbo, who took the place of former appropriations panel chair Rep. Zaldy Co (PL, Ako Bicol) as OIC, however insisted the House’s position that the ratification of the corrected bicameral report is “unnecessary.”
“This is simply because Omnibus Provision 2 of the Report, which was ratified by the members, allows for the possibility of corrections, within limits stated in Omnibus Provision 1 (typographical errors and adjustments as a consequence of amendments),” she said.
Escudero welcomed the petition, saying this will give the High Court a chance to fully understand the budget process.
“Nakita na natin ang papel na ginagampanan ng executive branch, ng legislative branch, at ngayon makikita natin ang papel na gagampanan naman ng judicial branch (We have all seen the roles played by the executive branch and the legislative branch in the budget process and it is now time to witness what role the judicial branch will play),” Escudero said in a press conference.
He said there is nothing to fear about the case since it is part of democracy.
Escudero said the supposed blank pages in the bicameral report as stated by Quimbo should not be a cause of concern since the GAA will be honored.
“Anuman ang mali o pagkukulang, dahil kinikilalang napakahaba nung budget sa dami ba naman ng linya nun, at kung may conflict, kung may pagkaka-iba ang bicameral conference committee report at ang enrolled bill ng budget – ang mananaig ay ang enrolled bill ng budget o ang GAA kung saan wala pong blangko at wala pong kulang doon (Any errors or missing items, because it is acknowledged that the budget contains numerous lines — and if there are conflicts, if there are differences in the bicameral conference committee report and the enrolled budget bill, the enrolled budget or the GAA [General Appropriations Act] will reign supreme where it has not blank and missing entries),” he said.
He also pointed out that the last page of the bicameral report states that the Senate finance committee or the House appropriations committee are authorized to correct “clerical errors” in the bicameral report since it would be impossible for lawmakers to review the entire budget measure because it has thousands of pages.
He said that provision is not new since it was already used in the past budget processes which have been approved by the chairs of both committees of Congress.
Escudero said all issues on the budget could have been a result of the ongoing political war, and not a result of the budget done haphazardly.
“Para sa akin, mas hudyat o simbolo yan kung gaano na kainit ang politika sa ating bansa, na bawat isang bagay na lang, malaki man o maliit, ay pupunahin, dadalhin sa korte, re-reklamuhan at ipe-prescon (For me, this is a signal or a symbol of how intense politics is in our country at this time, that every things – no matter how big or small – will be criticized, will be brough to the court, and will be announced in a press conference),” he said.
“Kung ano ang nandoon sa batas na pinirmahan ng Pangulo, yun ang batas. Hindi kung anumang report bago nun at yan din ang sinulat sa bicameral conference committee report na kung may pagkaka-iba ang bicam report – kulang man, sobra o mali ang total — at yung actual na enrolled bill, yung enrolled bill ang susundin. Yung enrolled bill ang manaig dahil yun ang batas (What the President signed in the [budget] law, is the law. It is not any report before that. And it was also stated in the bicameral conference committee report that if there are differences – whether there were some items missing, excess, or the totals are wrong – in the actual enrolled bill, the enrolled bill will be followed. The enrolled bill will reign because that is the law),” he stressed.
Bersamin said it was still too early to comment on the petition, saying he has yet to receive a copy of the complaint.
“Too soon to comment. I have yet to be served. Hence, I have not seen the contents. After that, the comment will be through the SolGen (Solicitor General),” Bersamin said in a message to the media.
Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra said his office will only comment on the petition if the High Court asked them to do so.
“In the meantime, the validity, regularity, and constitutionality of the 2025 GAA is legally presumed,” Guevarra said in a message to the media. – With Wendell Vigilia, Raymond Africa and Jocelyn Montemayor
