A significant part of the ruling concerned the Strengthening Assistance for Government Infrastructure and Social Programs (SAGIP).

The Supreme Court’s (SC) declaration that the 2024 and 2025 national budgets were unconstitutional has renewed calls to hold Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and other government officials accountable for the flood control corruption scandal. This also exposes how budget insertions and discretionary funds enabled the questionable use of billions of pesos in public money.

In its October 7 ruling on Lagman v. Congress (G.R. No. 271059), the high court struck down budgetary additions that exceeded the spending ceiling submitted by the President. It also permanently prohibited the release mechanisms for certain Unprogrammed Appropriations (UA) under the 2026 national budget.

For progressive lawmakers, the decision affirms long-standing warnings that the pork barrel system persisted despite earlier Supreme Court (SC) rulings restricting discretionary and lump-sum appropriations.

“The party’s over,” said ACT Teachers Partylist Rep. Antonio Tinio, deputy minority leader, in his October 21 discussion of the ruling.

Tinio said that the decision exposed how Congress and Malacañang used budgetary mechanisms to expand allocations beyond the limits set by the executive’s proposed budget, creating opportunities for patronage and corruption.

The court ruled that the national budget ceiling covers both programmed and unprogrammed appropriations. Congress cannot increase their combined total beyond the amount submitted by the President.

In the 2024 budget, lawmakers added P449.5 billion ($7.02 Billion) to unprogrammed appropriations. In 2025, they added P17.99 billion ($208.83 Million) to the Department of Public Works and Highways’ (DPWH) Special Road Fund. The court declared these additions unconstitutional and, consequently, the respective General Appropriations Acts.

The ruling also found that certain release conditions for unprogrammed appropriations in the 2026 budget violated constitutional requirements. The provisions allowed the executive to determine which projects would receive funding without clear standards for prioritization.

Billions funneled through questionable allocations

A significant part of the ruling concerned the Strengthening Assistance for Government Infrastructure and Social Programs (SAGIP), which the court declared unconstitutional as a prohibited lump-sum appropriation.

According to Tinio, P200 billion ($3.12 Billion) was released through SAGIP in 2024. Of this amount, P155.9 billion  ($2.43 Billion) went to the DPWH during the final quarter of the year, including P85.8 billion  ($1.34 Billion) for flood control projects.

The court described SAGIP as a covert repository for lump-sum allocations for DPWH infrastructure projects, including flood control.

The arrangement allowed the executive to determine the projects and amounts to be funded after Congress passed the budget, undermining legislative oversight over public spending.

The court also cited economist Solita Monsod’s observation that discretionary DPWH allocations had become a new form of pork barrel, reportedly accompanied by a six-percent “parking fee.”

The ruling criticized congressional amendments that reduced funding for strategic development projects while increasing allocations for infrastructure and assistance programs that could be used for political patronage.

Among the projects affected by cuts in the 2024 budget were the North-South Commuter Railway which faced a P53.93 billion ($841.87 Million) shortfall, and the Metro Manila Subway which faced a P52.63 billion ($821.57 Million) shortfall.

The court said that Congress created artificial fiscal space by reducing funding for development programs and redirecting allocations to other budget items, including DPWH infrastructure and assistance programs under the Department of Health, Department of Social Welfare and Development, and Department of Labor and Employment.

According to Makabayan, these findings highlight how budget decisions can deprive essential public services of funding while expanding discretionary spending that lacks sufficient transparency.

Makabayan lawmakers vindicated

For the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan), the ruling vindicated progressive lawmakers who opposed the 2024 and 2025 national budgets, warning that the flood control scandal demonstrated the consequences of allowing pork barrel allocations to persist.

During the ratification of the bicameral conference committee reports for both budgets, the only House members who voted against them were France Castro of ACT Teachers Party-list, Arlene Brosas of Gabriela Women’s Party, and Raoul Manuel of Kabataan Party-list.

The three opposed the 2024 budget over its massive unprogrammed appropriations, confidential and intelligence funds, and inadequate funding for social services and public utilities.

They again voted against the 2025 budget, citing the sudden expansion of unprogrammed appropriations, the lack of transparency in bicameral insertions, and cuts to essential sectors such as education and health.

Bayan President Renato Reyes Jr. said that the SC affirmed concerns repeatedly raised by Makabayan legislators, progressive organizations, and anti-corruption advocates about the expansion of pork barrel funds and infrastructure insertions.

He accused Marcos Jr. of playing a central role in the system that allowed questionable allocations to proliferate, calling for him to face investigation and prosecution over his alleged role in the flood control scandal.

The allegations against individual officials must still be established through appropriate investigations and legal proceedings.

Transparency, accountability

The SC criticized the bicameral conference committee for failing to adequately explain its changes to the national budget. During the proceedings, Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa asked for documents showing which programs had been cut and which had received additional funding. The solicitor general reportedly replied that “there are really no documents.”

The high court stressed that the bicameral conference committee does not have unlimited authority to rewrite the budget. Its mandate is confined to reconciling provisions on which the House and Senate disagree, and the ratification of its report cannot cure constitutional violations.

For Tinio, the ruling also raises questions about the liability of those who authored, proposed, and implemented the unconstitutional appropriations.

The court clarified that the doctrine of operative fact would apply only to projects that could no longer be undone and beneficiaries who acted in good faith. It did not automatically exempt the authors, proponents, and implementers from criminal, civil, or administrative liability, subject to the findings of the proper tribunal.

Tinio urged the Office of the Ombudsman and the Commission on Audit to examine the liability of officials involved in the questioned allocations.

He said that the ruling strengthened the impeachment complaint endorsed by the Makabayan bloc against Marcos Jr. in January in connection with the flood control scandal, particularly the allegations concerning his role in approving projects funded through unprogrammed appropriations.

2027 budget

The ruling comes as Congress deliberates on the proposed 2027 national budget where Tinio warned that several provisions appear to repeat mechanisms that the SC already invalidated or restricted.

These include release conditions for unprogrammed appropriations similar to those permanently prohibited under the 2026 budget, as well as a P42.55 billion ($664.22 Million) allocation for foreign-assisted projects without an itemized list of projects, loans, or implementing agencies.

Tinio also questioned proposed lump-sum allocations and congressional amendments that increased funding for selected programs while reducing allocations for foreign-assisted projects. He warned that the proposed budget could face further constitutional challenges if these provisions remain unchanged.

He called on the House of Representatives to reconsider its proposed budget and release a complete report explaining the amendments. He also urged the Senate to remove prohibited lump sums, correct the release conditions for unprogrammed appropriations, and restore funding for essential public services.

Reyes, meanwhile, called on the people to remain vigilant throughout the Senate and bicameral budget deliberations, stressing that the ruling should guide efforts to remove pork barrel allocations and redirect public funds toward social services.

Earlier Supreme Court rulings, including Belgica v. Ochoa and Araullo v. Aquino, had already established restrictions on pork barrel and unconstitutional fund releases. Yet the flood control scandal revealed how questionable practices could persist through new budgetary mechanisms.

Reyes warned that corruption would continue to find ways to survive unless the public challenged the patronage system underpinning the national budget.

For the petitioners and progressive lawmakers like Makabayan who opposed the questioned appropriations, the ruling is a victory. But the fight is far from over: the public must still demand that those responsible be held accountable and that the national budget prioritize the needs of ordinary Filipinos over political interests. (AMU, DAA)

The post SC ruling exposes pork barrel system appeared first on Bulatlat.

From Bulatlat via This RSS Feed.