The Supreme Court's ruling declaring the 2024 and 2025 General Appropriations Acts (GAA) unconstitutional, and voiding parts of the 2026 GAA, is no blanket clearance for President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. The Court ruled on specific budget provisions, not personal liability, and the operative fact doctrine absolves no one.
What the Doctrine Really Means
The operative fact doctrine recognizes that a measure later declared unconstitutional may already have produced consequences that cannot fairly be undone. In suitable cases, courts preserve some effects to prevent injustice, particularly where beneficiaries relied on the measure in good faith.
The doctrine does not make an unconstitutional appropriation valid, nor establish that every official acted unlawfully, or that none did.
The decision, penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen on a 13-2 vote, is dated October 7 and was released October 20. The Court declared the 2024 GAA unconstitutional because Congress raised Unprogrammed Appropriations by ₱449.5 billion, lifting total appropriations above the President's recommendation. It also voided the 2025 GAA over a ₱17.99-billion increase in the Special Road Fund of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).
In the 2026 GAA, the Court voided only Special Provisions 1(a) and (b), which allowed unprogrammed releases on new or excess revenues regardless of overall targets. It called them overly broad, barred their implementation, and held the "SAGIP" item in the 2024 and 2025 Unprogrammed Appropriations a prohibited lump sum.
The doctrine does not automatically protect officials who proposed, approved, or implemented the increases, the Court held; they may invoke good faith only before the proper tribunal. Spokesperson Atty. Camille Ting said liability must be pursued in proper proceedings, while funds used in good faith need not be returned.
What the Ruling Does Not Say
The Court held that the President did not gravely abuse his discretion in certifying the 2024 budget bill as urgent. Its finding of grave abuse fell on Congress, for increasing appropriations beyond his recommendation.
Unprogrammed Appropriations are not unconstitutional in themselves. They are contingent allocations, releasable only when revenue conditions are met. The problem arises when their structure or safeguards breach constitutional limits.
The Questions the Public May Fairly Ask
How did the increases enter the budgets? For 2024, the Court noted that the bicameral conference committee added 43 projects worth ₱303.11 billion to Unprogrammed Appropriations without adequately explaining them. The President's role cannot be set aside: he held line-item veto power and signed the bills. His veto record is mixed.
For 2024, the Palace cited only two vetoed provisions, and the ₱449.5-billion increase was not among them. For 2025, he vetoed ₱194 billion, including ₱168.24 billion in unprogrammed items and ₱26.065 billion in DPWH projects. The public is entitled to know whether the Special Road Fund increase later struck down was before him. For 2026, he signed Republic Act 12314 on January 5, vetoing about ₱92.5 billion in unprogrammed items.
Vetoing some items does not show that surviving items were adequately examined. What information and legal advice did the Executive have? Were constitutional concerns weighed? These questions examine executive judgment, not presume criminal liability.
The Palace's Position
Palace Press Officer Claire Castro said the administration disagrees and that President Marcos violated no law. She argued that the Court's condition, that unprogrammed funds be used only when revenues exceed targets, departs from Congress's rules.
Solicitor General Darlene Marie Berberabe said on October 22 that her office respects the principal ruling that Unprogrammed Appropriations are not unconstitutional, but will seek partial reconsideration of the guardrails, citing judicial overreach. She advised holding some covered 2026 releases. She has until November 4 to file it. Pending any motion, the decision is not yet final and remains open to judicial review.
Reactions and the 2027 Budget
Reactions are political positions, not findings. Vice President Sara Duterte asked President Marcos to explain why he signed the budgets. Rep. Toby Tiangco said a group has approached him about an impeachment complaint, possible once the one-year bar lapses in February, and asked why the President did not veto. Some commentators counter that the Court faulted congressional increases, not any presidential act.
On the proposed ₱7.2-trillion 2027 budget, Budget Secretary Kim de Leon told senators on October 22 that the struck-down provisions, including "SAGIP," are absent and unprogrammed funds are the lowest since 2019. Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian pledged to strip lump-sum funds, and Finance Committee Chair JV Ejercito vowed no bicameral insertions. Senate leaders declined Makabayan lawmakers' call to recall the House bill, warning of reenactment. Pledges are not performance; the bicameral conference will test them.
Public Money Demands Public Accounting
The same principle applies to flood-control projects. Citizens are entitled to know what was appropriated, which projects were funded, who authorized releases, and what was delivered. Flood-control cases are before the Sandiganbayan, and the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
______
Dr. Darwin T. Rasul III is a political analyst, writing as a regular columnist of OpinYon. He has served as Expert-Consultant of European Union Germany, ARMM Cabinet Assistant Secretary (Asec.), Editor-in-Chief of ARMM Official Publication, and was a legislative researcher and then as consultant in the Senate of the Philippines. He is a book author and has written many scholarly papers on political and historical issues about the Muslims in the Philippines.
#OpinYon #WeTakeAStand