OSG to question SC’s ‘judicial overreach’ in budget ruling

MANILA, Philippines — The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) will question whether the Supreme Court (SC) committed “judicial overreach” in its ruling declaring certain provisions of the 2024, 2025 and 2026 national budgets unconstitutional, Solicitor General Darlene Berberabe said Thursday.

In a 121-page decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the SC declared unconstitutional Congress’ P449.5-billion increase in unprogrammed appropriations under Republic Act 11975, or the 2024 General Appropriations Act (GAA).

The high court also nullified the P17.992-billion increase in the Department of Public Works and Highways’ Special Road Fund under RA 12116, or the 2025 GAA, as well as the P12.75-billion increase in the Special Accounts in the General Fund of certain agencies under the 2026 GAA.

Article continues after this advertisement

Speaking at a Palace briefing, Berberabe said the OSG would seek clarification on possible judicial overreach in the SC’s decision, noting that the power of the purse rests with Congress, while the executive branch is responsible for preparing, proposing and executing the national budget.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

READ: SolGen to appeal SC ruling declaring 2024, 2025 budgets unconstitutional

“Our Constitution has a structure and a rationale. We have three branches of government, each with its own responsibilities,” she said.

“What we want to emphasize and ask them to review is whether there are certain guardrails that should be left to the two political branches of government — Congress and the president, who are elected by the people,” Berberabe also said.

Judicial overreach occurs when a court exceeds its constitutional authority and encroaches on the functions of the legislative or executive branches of government.

Article continues after this advertisement

Berberabe said the executive and legislative branches have the authority to address budgetary issues within their respective constitutional powers.

She said these arguments would form part of the OSG’s motion for reconsideration of the SC ruling on the 2024, 2025 and 2026 budgets.

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: SC: ‘Bloated’ unprogrammed funds in nat’l budget ‘unconstitutional’

In a statement issued before the briefing, the OSG confirmed that it had received a copy of the SC decision but would challenge certain portions, particularly the guardrails prescribed for the exercise of budgetary powers.

“The OSG agrees that safeguards are essential to ensure transparency, accountability and fiscal discipline in the use of public funds. 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.