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 75 G.R. Nos. 271059, 271347, E-02472 fil/d E-040'.)6 objectives outlined in the president's Eight-Point Socioeconomic Agenda."3:24 These projects should have been under Programmed Appropriations, but were instead placed in Unprogrammed Appropriations. Of the PHP 155.9 billion released to DPWH, PHP 85.8 billion (55½) or 43% of total SAG IP funds went to flood control projects. In F.Y. 2025, DPWH received zero SAGIP releases due to the flood control investigations. DSWD325 and DOH326 absorbed the largest share. SAGIP shifted from infrastructure-led to social/human-capital spending. : ! SAGIP's share of total government expenditures fell from 3.38% (PHP 200.Q.billion) in 2024 to just 0.86%. (PHP 52.0. billion).in 2025. Through the SAGIP lump sum appropnat10n, the Executive had increased latitude to determine spending priorities after the budget has beyn enacted. There is weakened transparency and accountability because tfue specific projects are itemized only during the execution stage, without the benefit of public discussion and oversight. This effectively diluted Congress 1's control over public spending in contravention of Constitutional safeguards.: The PHP 85.8 billion DPWH release for flood control projeqts demonstrates how the SAGIP lump sum appropriation paved the way for the new pork barrel system. Amicus curiae Monsod referred to the DP\\'.}I infrastructure budget-divided into allocables327 and non-allocables328-!ls the "new pork barrel" where the system is now embedded in the NEP duri6.g the budget preparation.329 Choice of projects are made mostly while the NEP is being prepared, and a legislator may propose projects outside of their district •so long as they pay a "parking fee" of 6% to the district representative. 330 TJ;le SAGIP was the covert repository of lump sum allocations for DP\V;H infrastructure like flood control projects. The effect of this new system, as described by amicus curiae Monsqd, is a large opportunity cost that impinges on our ability to obtain the development objectives as expressed in the Philippine Development Plan 6f 2023-2028. These large opportunity costs will be borne disproportionat~ly - "" Id Purpose per SARO. 325 OSG Compliance dated April 17, 2026, Annex E. PHP 20.5 billion (DBM SAROs) or 39.4% ofSAG,IP. "'' OSG Compliance dated April 17, 2021, Annex E. PHP 6.77 billion (SARO-BMB-B-25-0013849) or If% ofSAGIP. - • - :m Al!ocables are funds distributed to different districts based on a formula where legislators propose lQcal projects. See PCIJ report, available al https://pcij.org/2025/11/29/allocables-are-the-nfw-pork/ (last accessed on October 6, 2026) . •128 National-scale projects of the DPWH. See PCIJ report, available ·1 at , https://pcij.org/2025/11/29/allocables-arHhe-new-pork/ (las, accessed o,n Oclober.6, 2026). _ :m TSN, April 7, 2026 Oral Arguments, p. 34-35. :no Id. at 35.