ESPNNHL Tonight: Previews, stats and betting intel for Thursday's dozen gamesThe Jerusalem PostIran's floating oil reserves, used for China sales, completely depleted, analysts say - reportPunchOsun APC rejects short notice for Tinubu campaign councilBollywood HungamaEXCLUSIVE: Ramayana's South distributors locked; Dil Raju bags Andhra-Telangana, Yash takes Karnataka, Think Studios gets Tamil Nadu, E4 Entertainment acquires KeralaDaily MaverickBusiness Reflection: Loaded for Bear: MTBPS shines light on lost revenue from missed mining opportunitiesRTP DesportoProva de Supertubos suspensaInquirerEl Niño response must draw on scientific, historical data – expertZDF heuteEntdecken Sie das ZDF-NachrichtenstudioAntara NewsGovt taps SEZ-integrated vocational training for industry alignmentWirtualna PolskaSikorski uderza w prezydenta. "Nie ma na to zgody"SCMP ChinaChina urges opening Bab al-Mandeb in first joint statement with regional nationESPN CricinfoSamson, Iyer and Dhir take India home in nervy chase against NZ
The Daily Newsstand · Free, Always
Thursday, October 22, 2026

Gatchalian: Senate will comply with SC ruling on budgets’ unconstitutionality

Translate
Gatchalian warns vs wacky shots in ‘sacred’ session hall
Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian (Photo by NIÑO JESUS ORBETA / INQUIRER.net)

MANILA, Philippines—While saying that the Senate will comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling, Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian on Thursday expressed concern over its decision to strike down certain provisions governing the release of unprogrammed appropriations (UA). 

The high tribunal earlier declared key provisions of the 2024, 2025 and 2026 national budgets unconstitutional for violating constitutional limits on government spending.

According to Gatchalian, the Senate will follow the decision to ensure that the proposed P7.2-trillion national budget is constitutional.

Article continues after this advertisement

“I told si Chairman JV (Ejercito) that we would comply with the Supreme Court ruling,” he said, referring to Sen. JV Ejercito, chairman of the Senate committee on finance.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

“In fact, if we look at the 2026 budget, it is not unconstitutional except for those two provisions that still need to be clarified,” the Senate leader said in an interview.

“Those two provisions concern the spirit of unprogrammed appropriations—specifically, excess revenues and new taxes,” he noted.

Gatchalian was referring to Sections 1a and 1b of the Special Provisions of the 2026 General Appropriations Act (GAA), which authorize the release of the UA when the government has excess or new revenue collections from non-tax sources.

While clarifying that the UA is not unconstitutional, the high tribunal prohibited the implementation of the two provisions. 

Article continues after this advertisement

But Gatchalian said this needs to be clarified, stressing that the two provisions are the reasons why the UA exists.

“That’s why we have unprogrammed appropriations because of excess and new (revenues). If you remove those, there’s no more use for unprogrammed,” he pointed out.

Article continues after this advertisement

He made this statement during the hearing of the Senate subcommittee on finance on the proposed Department of Budget and Management’s (DBM) budget next year.

Budget Secretary Kim Robert de Leon, who defended the budget of his office, told lawmakers that the third condition of the special provisions still allows the release of unprogframmed funds for foreign-assisted projects.

Sen. JV Ejercito, chairman of the Senate committee on finance, later joined the discussion.

He asked the DBM what amendments or adjustments Congress needs to make to prevent any constitutional infirmities in the crafting of the 2027 budget.

“Of course, in light of the Supreme Court ruling, we want to make sure we don’t make any mistakes in what we’re doing. What do we need to amend or adjust?” Ejercito asked the DBM chief.

De Leon agreed that the two sections were, indeed, affected by the ruling, as they were expressly declared unconstitutional by the high court.

 “But one thing we can assure is the executive is not releasing anything as of now, triggered by Sections 1a and 1b as covered by the Supreme Court decision,” the DBM chief added. /apl

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

(Note: The English translations in the article were AI-generated.)

View the original on Inquirer →

KioskNews shows a cleaned-up reading view extracted from the publisher’s page — the original always lives on their site, not ours.