271059/271347/E-02472/E-04036 Dissenting Opinion: Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr. — Official PDF

Dissenting Opinion 4 G.R. Nos. 271059, 271347 E-02472 & E-04036 For 2024, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) transmitted a National Expenditure Program (NEP) containing 'PHI' 281.908 billion in unprogrammed appropriations. House Bill No. 8980 substantially retained that amount, and the Senate approved the same. Despite the absence of any disagreement, the Bicameral Conference Committee (BCC) still increased the amount by PHP 449.540 billion to PHP 731.448 billion. It added forty-three programs, activities, and projects worth more than PHP 303 billion, increased Strengthening Assistance for Government Infrastructure and Social Programs (SAGIP) by about PHP 175.3 billion, and increased Support to Foreign-Assisted Projects by about PHP 61.1 billion.· Congress ratified the report, and the President signed Republic Act No. 11975, the 2024 General Appropriations Act. 13 Petitioners in G.R. No. 271059 alleged that the increase violated Article VI, Section 25(1) of the Constitution because "appropriations" includes programmed and unprogrammed appropriations. They further argued that the conference committee had nothing to reconcile. The petitioners in G.R. No. 271347 ap.ded that the President's certification of urgency was invalid because no public calamity or e111erger;icy justified dispensing with the sepai:ate-day re.ading requirement14 under Article VI, Section 26(2) of the Constitution. 15 The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) answered that the Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing (BESF), rather than the NEP, constituted the President's constitutional budget; that unprogrammed appropriations were contingent standby authority outside the ordinary expenditure ceiling; and that timely budget enactment justified the certification ofurgency. 16 While these cases were pending, petitioners in G.R. No. E-02472 challenged the increases made in the 2025 General Appropriations Act. The 2025 NEP contained PHP 27.352 billion for Special Accounts in the General Fund (SAGF) and PHP 16.756 billion for the Special Road Fund (SRF) under the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH). Through the BCC, the SAGF figures were increased by approximately PHP 12.755 billion, while the SRF was increased by approximately PHP 17.992 billion, b1inging it to PHP 34.748 billion.17 Petitioners argued that the special funds were governed by statutes prescribing thei.- sources and purposes and could not be enlarged through the annual appropriations law. 18 T~e OSG responded that SAGFs were automatic .appropriations established by existing laws and merely reflected in the annual budget for transparency and cash programming. It argued that Congress could not be said to have "increased" an 13 Petition (G.R. No. 271059), pp. 10-15. 14 Petition (G.R. No. 271347), pp. 12-24. 15 Sec. 26. _.. (2) No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal. 16 OSG Consolidated Comment, pp. 6-16. 17 Petition (G.R. No. E-02472), unpaginated. " Petition (G.R. No. E-02472), unpaginated.