271059/271347/E-02472/E-04036 Representative Edcel C. Lagman, substituted by Albay First District Representative Krisel B. Lagman, et al. Vs. The Congress of the Philippines, et al./Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III and Pantaleo “Bebot” Alvarez Vs. Lucas P. Bersamin, in his capacity as executive secretary, and Amenah F. Pangandaman, in her capacity as secretary of the Department of Budget and Management/Filipinos for Peace, Justice and Progress Movement, Inc. (FPJPM), represented by its president and chairperson, Joseph F. Cadsawan, and Gloria T. Puzon, chapter Officer Vs. The House of Representatives, et al./Edgar R. Erice and Leila De Lima Vs. The Senate of the Philippines, et al. — Official PDF

Decision 26 G.R. Nos. 271059, 271347, E-02472 and E-o4o36 In Pimentel 111 v. Afatula, 140 this Court restated the requirement and .disc4ssed that "the threshold is not only whether t)1e earliest opportunity was in the pleadings and processes prior in time in the same case, but also whether the grounds for the constitutional objection were already apparent when a prior case relating to the same issue and involving the same petitioner was being heard." 141 Petitioner Filipinos for Peace raised the constitutional issues at the earliest opportunity by alleging them in an original petition filed before this Court, which is a competent court capable of resolving them. 142 Petitioners Lagman et al., Pimentel III et al., and Erice et al. likewise complied with this requirement as their Petitions were filed during the lifetime of the 2024 GAA and 2026 GAA, and immediately before their implementation. Thus, the constitutional issues were raised as soon as the constitutional objections became apparent. Fourth, the question of constitutionality is the very !is mota of the cases. This requirement has been discussed· by this Court in Parcon-Song v. Parcon: 143 As a rule, the courts will not resolve the constitutionality of a law, if the controversy can be settled on other grounds. The policy of the courts is to avoid ruling on constitutional questions and to presume that the acts of the political departments are valid, absent a clear and unmistakable showing to the contrary. 144 In sum, the following issues involving the 2024, 2025, and 2026 GAA have been raised by petitioners: ( 1) whether unprogrammed appropriations, as a means of allocating and determining the national budget, are constitutional; (2) whether the Legislative branch may increase the amount of unprogrammed appropriations, SAGF, and earmarked funds for the Road User's Fund, recommended by the Executive Branch; and (3) whether the Legislative branch may validly move programs, activities, and projects from programmed appropriations to unprogrammed appropriations and vice versa. The issues raised in the consolidated Petitions strike at the heart of the Constitution's budget process design and cannot be resolved by this Court on // other grounds. · / 140 G.R. Nos. 274778, 275405 & 276233, December 3, 2025 [Per J. Lazaro-Javier, En Banc]. 1-11 Id. 1" Petition (G.R. No. E-02472), par. 5.17. 1" 876 Phil. 364 (2020) [Per J. Leoncn, En Banc]. 144 Id at 401.