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. 31 / 36
Conc!JITing and Dissenting Opinion 31 G.R. Nos. 271059, 271347,
E-02472 & E-04036
the report of the Bicameral Conference Committee was ratified by the
majority of the members ofboth houses of Congress before it was transmitted
to th,e President.
It is also well to remember that new measures or amendments
introduced in the budget by Congress are nevertheless subject to a full or
partial veto by the President if the new measures or amendments are not
consistent with legal requirements or the administration's accounting policies
or economic objectives. In the present case, it should be stressed that the
President did not veto the change in the unprogrammed appropriations made
by Congress. The President only clarified that by virtue of the authority vested
upon him by Article VII, Section 20114 of the Constitution, he may negotiate
foreign loan agreements other than those specifically listed by the Congress
in Special Provision No. 5, "Support to Foreign-Assisted Projects," Chapter
XLIII on Unprogrammed Appropriations of the GAA 2024. More, he added
that the release of funds for the san1e purpose shall be subject to the
submission of a Special Budget pursuant to Section 35, Chapter 5,, Book VI
of the Revised Administrative Code. 115
Special Provision 1 (a) of. Chapter
XLIII of Republic Act No. 12314, or
the 2026 GAA authorizing
Unprogrammed Appropriations on
the first condition for the release of
funds, namely, excess revenue
collection in any one of the identified
non-t= revenue sources, is
unconstitutional.
I agree with the ruling in the ponencia that Special Provision l(a) of
Chapter XLIII of Republic Act No. 12314, or the 2026 GAA authorizing
Unprogrammed Appropriations on the first condition for the release of funds,
namely, excess revenue collection in any one of the identified non-tax revenue
sources, is unconstitutional. It violates Article VII, Section 22, which requires
, that,the President's proposed budget, the basis of the general appropriations
bill, be a budget of expenditures and sources of financing.
114 Const. (1987), art. VII, sec. 20 staes:
SECTION 20. The President may contract or guarantee foreign ioans on behalf of the Republic of the
Philippines with the prior concurrence of the; Monet,ary Board1 and subject to such ]imitations as may be
provided by law. The Monetary 'Board shall, within thirty days from the end of every quarter of the
calendar year, submit to the Congress a e,o'rnpletr:f repo1i of its decision on applications for loans to be
contracted or guarai---iteed by the Government or government-owned and controUed corporations which
would have the effect of increasing the foreign debi, an<l containing other matters as may be provided
by law.
115 Part III, A.7., Fiscal Year 2024 President's \Teto ~v-1essag(.\ https:/,'www.dbm.gov.ph/wp- ~
content/uploads/GAA/GAA2024Nolume!/VETO.pdf (
If your browser cannot display the PDF, use Download original. Original access follows the same document permissions.