Chief justice contender Zalameda defends gov’t officials on budget hike

MANILA, Philippines—Supreme Court Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda, a contender for the chief justice post, said public officials responsible for increasing unprogrammed appropriations under the national budget should be presumed to have acted in good faith.

During his interview Monday before the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), Zalameda said unprogrammed appropriations are constitutional and that official acts are presumed regular unless a competent court rules otherwise.

“When you say it is constitutional, I don’t think the public officers may be held liable for such an act, for an act which is declared constitutional,” said Zalameda, one of five candidates seeking to replace Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo, who is set to retire on Nov. 6.

Article continues after this advertisement

Zalameda clarified that the SC did not rule on the possible liability of public officials involved in the case because the petitioners did not raise the issue.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

In its ruling, the SC said Congress committed grave abuse of discretion by increasing the Executive Branch’s recommended budget for unprogrammed funds.

The SC declared unconstitutional Congress’ P449.5-billion increase in unprogrammed appropriations under Republic Act (RA) 11975, or the 2024 General Appropriations Act, which raised the amount in the National Expenditure Program (NEP) from P281.9 billion to P731.4 billion.

The SC also nullified the P17.992-billion increase in the Special Road Fund under RA 12116, or the 2025 GAA, as well as Special Provisions 1(a) and (b) under the 2026 GAA.

READ: SC bloated unprogrammed funds in nat’l budget unconstitutional

Article continues after this advertisement

Zalameda explained that there is a need to distinguish between a constitutional violation and grave abuse of discretion.

He said the SC has the authority to review acts of Congress and the executive branch but should not interfere with every government decision simply because another course of action might be preferable.

Article continues after this advertisement

“Each branch of government is bound by its own constitutional mandate. Respect for these boundaries is one of the foundations of a constitutional government,” Zalameda said in his opening statement before the JBC.

READ: Marvic Leonen’s CJ agenda: Curb corruption, declog court dockets

In his concurring and dissenting opinion, Zalameda cited Article VI, Section 25(1) of the Constitution, which prohibits Congress from increasing the appropriations recommended by the president.

He explained that the restriction was intended to prevent Congress from increasing government spending beyond available funding sources.

However, Zalameda argued that unprogrammed appropriations differ from regular budget allocations because they serve as standby funds that may be released only when additional financing becomes available.

He also maintained that only specific provisions found unconstitutional should be struck down, rather than an entire law, when those provisions can be separated from the rest.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

The other applicants interviewed by the JBC for the chief justice position were Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen and Associate Justices Benjamin Caguioa, Japar Dimaampao, and Jose Midas Marquez. /mcm