Integrating in GAA unprogrammed appropriations ‘unconstitutional, repugnant’

December 9, 2025 | 12:00am

MANILA, Philippines — The national government’s practice of integrating “unprogrammed appropriations” in the annual General Appropriations Act approved by Congress is “unconstitutional” and even “repugnant,” according to a senior Supreme Court justice.

Justice Ramon Paul Hernando made the assertion in his separate 33-page concurring opinion on the SC’s decision ordering the return of Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (PhilHealth) funds earlier transferred to the national treasury.

“The right to health is not rhetorical. It is a binding constitutional command that imposes real limits on fiscal discretion,” Hernando said, adding that the transfer of P60 billion in PhilHealth funds was unconstitutional.

“When government agencies divert funds dedicated to that right, they do not merely mismanage public finances – they betray a constitutional trust,” the former appellate court justice said.

“What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly, nor cured by a change in direction. A governmental act that violates the Constitution cannot serve as a lawful basis for the permanent reallocation of public funds,” he pointed out.

“The Court should never hesitate to declare as null and void provisions of law that violate any norm or precept of the Constitution. The Constitution does not contemplate a GAA containing unprogrammed appropriation. Thus, the Court is duty-bound to nullify the inclusion of unprogrammed appropriations in the GAA,” he said.

“Convenience alone can never justify an otherwise unconstitutional practice. I respectfully submit that the inclusion of unprogrammed appropriations in the GAA is not allowed under the 1987 Constitution,” Hernando maintained.

The magistrate’s opinion is based on a 38-year-old jurisprudence, where the SC held in Demetria vs Alba in February 1987 that the Budget Reform Decree of 1977 should be struck down as it allowed “excessive presidential power over fund transfers, impacting legislative power and constitutional safeguards.”

The SC “invalidated” the statute that authorized the “President to transfer funds across departments because it offended the same constitutional prohibition, then found in the 1973 Constitution, which was ‘substantially reenacted’ in the 1987 Constitution.”

“It was crafted to forestall the very abuse now before us: the cross-border realignment of funds already appropriated or earmarked for a specific purpose, under the flimsy pretense of executive flexibility,” the former prosecutor reiterated.

Hernando declared that President Marcos’ order to return the P60 billion to PhilHealth was good, but not necessarily aboveboard or lawfully correct.

“This executive acknowledgment is politically significant, but it is not, and cannot be, the legal ground for restitution. The basis for ordering the return of the funds is the Constitution itself, as construed in our jurisprudence,” he pointed out. — Mayen Alquitran

Recommended