2 hours ago
1
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
October 27, 2026 | 6:02pm
This file photo shows the seal of the Supreme Court.
Philstar.com / EC Toledo
MANILA, Philippines — Public officials involved in the allocation and increase of unprogrammed funds cannot be held personally liable, as their actions carry the presumption of regularity, Supreme Court Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda said.
During the interviews for the chief justice position on Monday, October 26, Zalameda, citing the high court’s ruling striking down provisions of the 2024, 2025 and 2026 General Appropriations Acts, said that because unprogrammed appropriations are not unconstitutional per se, the actions of the officials are presumed to be in good faith.
“When you say it is constitutional, I don't think the public officers may be held liable for such act, for act which is declared constitutional,” Zalameda said.
“Aside from that, there is presumption of regularity on the part of these public officials and all their acts are considered valid until such acts are declared invalid and they have the presumption of regularity,” he added.
During the interview, Zalameda also explained that under the constitutional principle of separation of powers, the executive, legislative and judicial branches operate with distinct and equal functions, bounded only by specific constitutional limitations.
He explained that unless a branch exceeds these limitations or commits a grave abuse of discretion, which falls under the court's expanded judicial review, the judiciary cannot intervene.
“Otherwise, these functions relating to the wisdom the different branches of the government specifically the executive and the legislative branches are policy wisdom, policy matters which cannot be included into by this court,” Zalameda said.
The Supreme Court, in its ruling on October 7, declared unconstitutional provisions of the 2024, 2025 and 2026 General Appropriations Acts concerning unauthorized congressional increases in unprogrammed funds and specific special accounts.
The high court emphasized that unprogrammed appropriations are not unconstitutional per se, as long as they comply with specific conditions.
