‘Judicial overreach’: OSG sets challenge vs SC ruling

MANILA, Philippines — The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) will challenge the Supreme Court’s ruling invalidating specific provisions of the 2024 and 2025 national budgets and restricting the release of unprogrammed funds under the 2026 budget, questioning whether the high court committed “judicial overreach” by imposing safeguards that encroach on the budgetary powers of Congress and the executive branch.

Solicitor General Darlene Berberabe said on Thursday the OSG would seek clarification and partial reconsideration of the 121-page decision, arguing that elected branches of government should be allowed to correct budgetary issues within their constitutional powers.

The OSG has until Nov. 4 to file its motion, which will question the boundaries of judicial oversight over the national budget even as the executive seeks to minimize disruptions to government spending in the remaining months of 2026.

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: Reflections on the 2026 national budget

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

The OSG’s planned challenge seeks to clarify the boundaries between judicial oversight and the budgetary authority of the political branches, even as the executive branch prepares to comply with the restrictions imposed by the court while awaiting its final action.

The move comes as the government prepares to implement the remaining 2026 budget, with the high court prohibiting the release of certain unprogrammed appropriations while its ruling stands.

Berberabe said she would advise the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and other executive agencies to proceed cautiously and prepare for the possibility that the court would not immediately reconsider its decision.

READ: Making sense of the 2027 national budget

Article continues after this advertisement

“As for us, what we would advise the DBM and the executive is that we should prepare ourselves as if we were not expecting a decision to be made immediately,” she said at a Palace briefing.

“Our Supreme Court will definitely give this priority because the Supreme Court also does not want the execution of the budget to be affected in our remaining 2026,” she added.

Article continues after this advertisement

‘Judicial overreach’

Berberabe said the government would question whether the high court went beyond its constitutional authority in prescribing guardrails for the exercise of budgetary powers.

READ: P6.7-trillion 2026 national budget will hold up to legal test – Palace

The Constitution assigns Congress the power of the purse, while the executive branch prepares, proposes and implements the national budget. The judiciary, she said, must respect the division of responsibilities among the three branches.

“So, our Constitution has a structure, it has a rational. We have three branches of government, each with its own responsibilities,” Berberabe said.

“What we would like to emphasize and request that they review is that there may be guardrails that should be left to the two branches, which are the political branches—meaning the Congress and the President, who were elected by the people,” she added.

In a statement, the OSG said it agreed that safeguards were necessary to ensure transparency, accountability and fiscal discipline in the use of public funds. However, it argued that the court must distinguish between protections required by the Constitution and those whose formulation belongs to the political branches.

“The complex challenge, however, lies in distinguishing the safeguards that are required by the Constitution from those whose formulation falls within the constitutionally provided powers of Congress and the executive,” the statement read.

“The OSG will respectfully seek clarification and partial reconsideration to ensure that the guardrails prescribed in the decision remain consistent with this constitutional allocation of powers,” it added.

Spending restrictions

While the OSG has yet to file its motion, Berberabe said the DBM and the executive branch should determine which programs could continue without violating the ruling.

“Unless it is clearly stated that you should stop this, that will be stopped. But as for the others, that is why I said, our team should be studying which ones can be implemented that are not covered by the decision,” she said.

The OSG and DBM have yet to discuss the specific programs that could be affected if the Supreme Court rejects the government’s plea.

Berberabe said the executive branch was seeking to minimize the ruling’s impact on the implementation of the 2026 budget.

“So, in other words, let’s think that the executive is doing everything so that the impact on the 2026 budget is minimal, not that significant, given what the Supreme Court found with the prohibition on the executive,” she said.

The Supreme Court’s decision, penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, declared unconstitutional Congress’ P449.5-billion increase in unprogrammed appropriations under Republic Act No. 11975, or the 2024 General Appropriations Act.

It also struck down a P17.992-billion increase in the Department of Public Works and Highways’ Special Road Fund under the 2025 GAA, or Republic Act No. 12116, and a P12.75-billion increase in the Special Accounts in the General Fund of certain agencies under the 2026 GAA.

The court also prohibited the implementation of Special Provisions 1(a) and (b) under Chapter XLIII of the 2026 budget, which govern the release of unprogrammed appropriations.

Unprogrammed appropriations serve as standby funding for projects that may be financed when additional revenues or other specified funding sources become available. Programmed appropriations, meanwhile, cover planned government expenditures supported by identified funding sources.

Lower standby funds

Berberabe said the proposed 2027 national budget contained significantly lower unprogrammed appropriations than the 2026 budget.

The ruling has also prompted senators to seek DBM recommendations on how to adjust the proposed P7.2-trillion 2027 budget to ensure compliance with the court’s decision.

Budget Secretary Kim Robert de Leon told senators that the proposed 2027 budget no longer included the Strengthening Assistance for Government Infrastructure and Social Programs, which the court had declared unconstitutional, and contained fewer items under unprogrammed appropriations.

In the House of Representatives, Makabayan bloc lawmakers have called for the recall of the approved 2027 budget bill, arguing that it contains provisions similar to those invalidated by the court. Senate finance committee chair Joseph Victor “JV” Ejercito, however, has appealed to the House to retain its version and resolve potential issues during bicameral conference deliberations to avoid delays in passing the national budget.

Marcos not liable

Malacañang maintained that President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. was not held liable in the SC decision.

Palace Press Officer Claire Castro said the president wanted to ensure adequate funding for government programs while putting safeguards in place to prevent corruption.

“What President Marcos Jr. wants is to have enough budget for government programs for the interest of the people. There is also enough protection against corruption, so there are enough guardrails so that it cannot be abused,” Castro said in her regular briefing at the Palace.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

She said the ruling did not discuss the president’s liability and that any accountability issues, if warranted, should be raised before the appropriate forum.