BY WENDELL VIGILIA and ANGELA CELIS
ALBAY Rep. Joey Salceda yesterday said there is nothing unlawful with the inclusion of an additional P449.5 billion in unprogrammed funds in the 2024 national budget since the constitutional provision against increasing the budget recommended by the Executive in the National Expenditure Program (NEP) only covers programmed appropriations.
“Only the programmed appropriations are subject to the Article VI, Section 25 (1) of the Constitution, or the prohibition against increasing appropriations recommended by the President. In short, the DBM (Department of Budget and Management) said Congress can increase the unprogrammed appropriations as proposed,” Salceda said.
Unprogrammed appropriations serve as standby authority to incur additional agency obligations for priority programs or projects when the government’s revenue exceeds its target collections, and when additional grants or foreign funds are generated.
The Bicol lawmaker, who is the chairperson of the House Committee on Ways and Means, made the statement in defense of the move of the two houses of Congress to insert P449.5 billion on top of the P281.9 billion unprogrammed appropriations recommended by the Executive in the proposed 2024 NEP.
Salceda said the legality of increasing the unprogrammed funds was discussed “and we took the effort, during budget deliberations, to seek guidance from both the Executive through the DBM and the records of the Constitutional Commission.”
He also said the DBM gave Congress the green light to increase the unprogrammed appropriations under the P5.768 trillion national budget for 2024.
He said that in response to his query last December 14, the DBM wrote to his office “clarifying, essentially, that the unprogrammed appropriations are not part of the fiscal program.”
The DBM, in a statement, backed Salceda’s explanation as it underscored that unprogrammed appropriations only serve as standby funds outside the approved government fiscal program, which supports unforeseen expenditures and prioritize essential programs and projects.
“We write to shed light on concerns regarding the unprogrammed appropriations of the fiscal year 2024 national budget,” it said, adding: “It (unprogrammed funds) is not included in the P5.7676 trillion 2024 National Budget by Appropriation Source, given that it refers to standby appropriations that are also proposed for legislation and to be authorized by Congress.”
The DBM likewise noted that unprogrammed appropriations under the 2024 budget are not automatically allocated, and can only be released if several funding conditions are met, such as when the government is able to collect excess revenue in the total tax revenues or any of the identified non-tax revenue sources from its revenue target, or new revenue from new tax or non-tax sources, or should foreign or approved financial loans/grants proceeds are realized.
“Should there be new or excess revenues that may trigger the availability of the unprogrammed funds, government agencies are required to submit the necessary documentary requirements before access to the standby funds is given. Such conditions ensure that spending stays within allowable limits,” the DBM said.
The agency also cited the constitutional provision under Section 29 (1), Article VI that states: “No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.”
“It is therefore clear that the deliberation and approval of the limits of any appropriations is within the purview of the legislature,” the DBM said.
“Rest assured that regardless of any petition or challenge, the DBM shall work within our approved fiscal program,” it added.
Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, a leader of the opposition, earlier said the P5.768 trillion national budget for 2024 is unconstitutional because of the additional unprogrammed funds which President Marcos Jr. did not veto when he signed the General Appropriations Act (GAA).
Lagman pointed out that the Constitution unequivocally provides in Section 25 (1) of Article VI that “the Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the President for the operation of the government as specified in the budget” or the NEP.
He said Republic Act No. 11975 must be challenged before the Supreme Court (SC) “to cleanse the GAA of a fatal defect and give guidance to the Congress and the President in the future budget seasons.”
Senate minority leader Aquilino Pimentel III and former senator Panfilo Lacson have also earlier questioned the inclusion of the additional unprogrammed funds in the final version of the 2024 national budget.
SUPREME COURT
Pimentel yesterday said that he and a member of the House of Representatives, whom he did not identify, will challenge before the Supreme Court (SC) the constitutionality of the 2024 GAA in relation to the insertion of the P450 billion unprogrammed appropriations.
Pimentel said he and the congressman are already finalizing the “outline” of the case to be filed.
“I am talking to a member of the House of Representatives who wants to join me in filing a case but it’s not Cong. (Edcel) Lagman,” Pimentel said in a Zoom interview.
Pimentel said he has a team of lawyers which is studying the case and preparing the outline of the petition. Once done, he said he will forward the document to the congressman for his or her further study.
He said they are looking at filing the petition at the soonest possible time.
“As a matter of fact, malapit ko nang matapos yung outline ng kaso namin as to why the additional P450 billion in unprogrammed funds is unconstitutional (As a matter of fact, the outline of the case will soon be finished. It contains why the additional P450 billion in unprogrammed funds is unconstitutional),” he added.
He said the practice of lawmakers in inserting allocations in unprogrammed appropriations should be stopped as he observed that this has been going on since 2022.
In the 2022 budget, he said Congress added P100 billion in unprogrammed funds, while in the 2023 budget, more than P290 billion were inserted.
“If we do not stop this practice, aabusihin na rin talaga. Ang masama, unconstitutional pa ‘yung practice na ‘yun (If we do not stop this practice, this will be abused. Worse, the practice is unconstitutional),” he added.
After the 2024 proposed budget was approved in the bicameral conference committee, Pimentel said the P281.9 billion unprogrammed funds under the NEP and the Senate version of the budget measure remained as such, but this was bloated to P731.4 billion after the bicam.
Pimentel said lawmakers acted beyond their mandate by increasing the appropriations asked by the President which he said is unconstitutional.
He cited Section 25, Article 6 of the 1987 Constitution which states that “Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the President for the operation of the government as specified in the budget.”
Pimentel said that instead of increasing the unprogrammed funds, the President can ask Congress to approve a supplemental budget in case the government has excess funds.
“If there are funds available and there are important expenditures of the government, hindi ba dapat ang mas karapat-dapat na gawin ay mag request na lang ng supplemental budget? Parang na-circumvent din yung idea ng supplemental budget (If there are available funds and there are important expenditures of the government, isn’t it the best thing to do is to ask for a supplemental budget? It looks like this (bloating unprogrammed appropriations) circumvented the idea of the supplemental budget),” he added.
Pimentel said there are at least two provisions in the Constitution which were violated — the one that says that there should be no expenditures from public coffers without an appropriation made by law, and that Congress cannot increase the appropriations set by the President.
He said they will also question before the SC the legality of the certification issued by the President for Congress to pass the budget measure urgently.
He said the certification issued by the President allowed the passing of the budget bill from second reading to third and final reading in a single day, therefore, giving lawmakers no chance of reviewing it.
Besides, he said, the budget measure is tackled every year, and he sees no emergency situation that calls for its urgent passage.
“Kaya anong nangyayari? Hindi nakikita yung final version, ilang thousands of pages ito, lalong hindi natin nakikita lahat ng detalye (So, what will happen? We do not have the chance to take a look at the final versions of the measure which is composed of thousands of pages. More so, we cannot review its details),” he said.
He said unprogrammed appropriations are also used to prioritize pet projects of lawmakers who are allied with the administration as shown in past budgets where Ilocos Norte, Tacloban, and Albay, among others received the funds.
“Ang delikado diyan lalo ‘yung mga naka lump na amounts. Doon sa naka-lump na amounts, palakasan na ‘yun kasi per request na ‘yung release nun (What is worrisome are the lump sum amounts in these unprogrammed appropriations. The amounts go to favored lawmakers because the release is on a per request basis),” he said.
Salceda welcomed Pimentel’s plan to question the constitutionality of the 2024 national budget before the SC, saying “any party can file any suit against the 2024 GAA to their satisfaction.”
At its core, Salceda said the logic of the Constitution is simple: Congress should not overstep the fiscal deficit programmed by the President.
“Indeed, this view is affirmed by the Supreme Court, in Sarmiento vs. the Treasurer of the Philippines [G.R. No. 125680 & 126313.September 4, 2001], which also cites the records of the Constitutional Commission. In the words of the Constitutional Commissioner Christian Monsod, it is to ensure that the budget does not ‘put the government in debt or in deficit,’” he said.
The very conditions placed on the unprogrammed appropriations are designed in such a manner that no additional deficit will be incurred, Salceda pointed out.
The economist-lawmaker said Article VII, Section 22 of the Constitution specifies that the President shall submit a Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing (BESF) as the basis for the budget.
“Taken in this light, the constitutional limit to increases in programmed appropriations make sense as it applies to the BESF. When in excess of the BESF, there is no limitation imposed on Congress, and its power of the purse, long respected by the Supreme Court, is supreme,” Salceda said.
Salceda said no less than Lagman’s partymate, former Senate President Franklin Drilon, defended the increase in unprogrammed appropriations as constitutional.
“Ultimately, once a case is filed in the Supreme Court, the court will decide on the matter. I expect it to decide as it has always done so: with the maximum liberality and presumption of regularity granted to Congress in the exercise of its exclusive powers,” he said. — With Raymond Africa
