Court decisionSource checked
271059/271347/E-02472/E-04036 Concurring and Dissenting Opinion: Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh — 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. 20 / 37
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion 20 G.R. Nos. 271347, 278353,
E-024 72 & E-04036
Unprogramrned appropriations are a
form of advanced supplemental or
special appropriations
As stated, it is my considered view t.liat UAs are a form of advanced
enactment of a supplemental or special appropriation.
Article VI, Section 25(4) of the Constitution states:
A special appropriations· bill shall specify the purpose for which it
is intended, and shall be supported by· fi.mds ~ctually available as certified
by the National Treasurer, or to be raised by a corresponding revenue
proposed therein.
This provision embodies two fundamental requirements for the passage
of appropriations that are outside the regular expenditure program: (a)
specificity of purpose; and (b) a corresponding fiscal basis. A special or
supplemental appropriation must identify what the funding is for and a
corresponding showing that the funds are actually available, as certified by
the National Treasurer, or that the law itself provides for the revenue source
from which the appropriation will be supported.
UAs substantially incorporate these same requirements. They are
appropriations for specified purposes as provided for in the PAPs included
therein. More importantly, they do not authorize the immediate expenditure
of funds that are not yet available. Their availability is expressly conditioned
' upon the occurrence of the triggers identified ih the Special Provisions of the
UA under the GAA, such as excess revenue collections over the original
targets, new revenue collections not included in the original revenue program,
or approved loans for foreign-assisted projects.
The constitutional distinction between an ordinary special or
supplemental appropriation and the UA, therefore, lies principally in the
timing of the realization of the financing, not in the fundamental nature of the
legislative authorization.
In a conventional special or supplemental appropnat10n, the fiscal
condition supporting the additional expenditure has already materialized. The
additional revenues have already been collected, the excess collections have
already been realized, or the financing source has otherwise alrea,dy become
available. TI1e National Treasurer can consequently certify that funds are
actually available, and Congres~ may enact th.e qorre~ponding appropriation
• for tl~e specified purp~se so as to be able to disburse the excess collections or
additional realized financing.
If your browser cannot display the PDF, use Download original. Original access follows the same document permissions.