An independent Philippine legal research libraryRead with context. Verify with confidence.
Court decisionSource checked

271059/271347/E-02472/E-04036  Concurring and Dissenting Opinion: Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez — Official PDF

271059/271347/E-02472/E-04036 — Promulgated October 7, 2026 · 2026 · Supreme Court 2026 / Separate opinion

Source checked. The source check identifies the document; it does not verify every transcribed word or its current legal effect. Recovered or scanned text may contain errors. Compare the wording and subsequent history with the linked legal source.

DIGITAL P. 13 / 36
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion G.R. Nos. 271059, 271347, E-0247~ & E-04036 Operating on a re-enacted budget has serious ramifications on the economy and on the delivery of public goods, services, and infrastructure. A re-enacted budget means that government expenditure is limited to the previous year's allocations. This can constrain the government's ability to fund new projects and respond to emerging needs. Also, new infrastructure projects and other planned programs and projects may be delayed or stalled. This can impact the infrastn,1eture development and affect long-term economic growth. More, programs and services that require additional funding or adjustments may suffer. For example, education, healthcare, and social welfare programs might face disruptions or inadequate funding. Judicial notice must be taken that in recent years, Congress has failed to pass the national budgets for 2019 and 2020 on time, which forced the government at that time to operate on a reenacted budget. Thus, the ramifications of failing to pass a budget on time and operating on a reenacted budget are akin to an emergency, which the President has the , duty, to prevent from happening. Therefore, 'the' certification issued by the President is based on the exigency that failure to pass the 2024 GAA on time will have serious consequences, as discussed above, and the same should be accorded due deference by Congress as a coequal branch of government. III. Unprogrammed appropriations are not unconstitutional per se. As astutely adjudged by the ponencia, unprogrammed appropriations are not unconstitutional per se. The inclusion of unprogrammed appropriations in the national budget is a product of necessity. It is a form of standby appropriation that provides immediate funding when specified conditions exist, preventing undue delay in implementing identified PAPs. It is particularly relevant in emergencies and contingencies, such as unexpected expenses and additional support for infrastructure projects, social programs, and foreign-assisted projects. According to the. Department of Budget and ' Management (DBM),· ru1.programrrted appropriatfons serve as fiscal buffers, which allow the government ''to.· respond··to unforeseen needs or urgent national priorities without breaching the fiscal program approved by Congress."57 The ponencia incisively declares that "as long as they act as limited standby authorizatiou, a~cording to their original intent, and preserve the integrity qf the integrated national fiscal program,"58 unprogrammed appropriations are not constitutionally infinn. 57 DBM: Unprogrammed appropriations serve as fiscal buffCrs, not "secret funds; GMA News Online Website, available at https:/1wvvw .gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/962360/ dbm- unprogrammc-d-approprio:Lions-ser·le~a.s:;~fis,cal~buffers-rwt-secrnt-funds/story / ~ last accessed on Nov◊mhr,r 5, '.207.5 51:. Ponencia, p. 43.