SolGen to seek partial reconsideration of SC ruling on past budgets

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) said Thursday it would seek clarification and partial reconsideration of certain parts of the Supreme Court (SC) decision which declared as unconstitutional the national budget laws in 2024 and 2025, and legislated provisions relating to unprogrammed funds.

This came a day after Palace Press Officer Undersecretary Claire Castro said Malacañang "respectfully disagrees" with certain parts of the ruling, asking the high court to carefully review it.

The Palace said the OSG has been tasked to file the motion for reconsideration.

The OSG confirmed that it received a copy of the SC decision, which it said it respects. However, the OSG said it would challenge certain parts, "particularly the guardrails prescribed for the exercise of budgetary powers."

"The OSG agrees that safeguards are essential to ensure transparency, accountability, and fiscal discipline in the use of public funds. 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 said.

EXPLAINER: SC voids multi-trillion-peso budget laws in 2024 and 2025. Now what?

"The OSG will respectfully seek clarification and partial reconsideration to ensure that the guardrails prescribed in the Decision remain consistent with this constitutional allocation of powers," it added.

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court struck down the General Appropriations Acts (GAAs) for 2024 and 2025 after Congress added appropriations beyond what the President had recommended in the National Expenditure Program.

Specifically, the 2024 budget was voided due to a P449.5-billion increase in unprogrammed appropriations, while the 2025 budget was struck down because of the additional P17.99 billion for the Special Road Fund of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).

The High Court likewise deemed as unconstitutional Special Provisions 1(a) and (b), Chapter XLIII in the 2026 GAA authorizing unprogrammed appropriations. It then set conditions that would allow the such appropriations to be constitutional.

The OSG noted that the 12 separate opinions accompanying the SC decision "reflect the complexity of the constitutional questions presented and the differing judicial perspectives on their resolution."

The OSG said it would carefully consider such opinions in its further action.

Judicial overreach

At a Palace briefing, Solicitor General Darlene Berberabe said that they are also looking into the possibility of a “judicial overreach” on the decision of the Supreme Court.

Citing the 1987 Constitution, she explained that the authority to prepare the budget and propose it to Congress rests with the Executive branch, while the power of the purse solely belongs to the legislature. Once the GAA is enacted, she said the Executive is again responsible for the execution of the budget.

“So, ang Konstitusyon po natin may istruktura siya, may rational po siya. May tatlo tayong branches of government, kaniya kaniya ng responsibilidad,” Berberabe said.

(Our Constitution has a structure and a rationale. We have three branches of government, each with its own distinct responsibilities.)

“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,” she added.

(What we would like to emphasize and request is for the SC to review whether there are certain guardrails that should perhaps be left to the two political branches.

She said the OSG’s view on the possible judicial overreach may be included in its motion for reconsideration.

The Solicitor General also pointed out that the SC decision did not mention anything regarding the need to return the funds already spent on programs and projects back to the national treasury, citing the doctrine of operative fact.

“Operative fact, ibig sabihin, hindi natin i-invalidate ‘yung mga proyekto. So, wala pong sinabi ‘yung desisyon na ibabalik, kundi, in fact, pasulong nga po,” Berberabe said.

(Operative fact means that we are not invalidating the projects done. So, the decision did not state anything about returning the funds. In fact, it is forward-looking.)

“At ‘yung mga guardrails na sinabi naman sa Supreme Court decision, ‘yun po ay paalala sa Executive at sa Congress na, ‘Oh sige, sa mga susunod na budget, ito ngayon ‘yung mga guardrails na inyong aalalahanin,’ para hindi na maulit ‘yung sinasabi nila na lumabag sa Konstitusyon noong 2024 at 2025,” she added.

(As for the guardrails mentioned in the Supreme Court decision, these serve as a reminder to the Executive and Congress that moving forward, in future budgets, these are the guardrails you must keep in mind to ensure that the constitutional violations from 2024 and 2025 do not happen again.)

The Supreme Court, as to the 2024 and 2025 GAA, held that the doctrine of operative fact applies.

The high court, however, noted that the doctrine covers only irreversible programs whose beneficiaries acted in good faith, and does not shield authors, proponents, or implementers from criminal, civil, or administrative liability unless the proper tribunals explicitly find that they acted in good faith. — VDV/RSJ, GMA News