FACT CHECK: SC didn’t rule Marcos’ budget signing unconstitutional

The Court faulted Congress for raising the President's proposed budget, and with the decision not yet final, no formal probe has been opened

AT A GLANCE

• The Supreme Court ruled that the national budgets for 2024 and 2025 were unconstitutional due to Congress adding excessive funds, not because of President Marcos's signature.
• The ruling is not yet final, as the Office of the Solicitor General has filed a motion for clarification and reconsideration regarding the budget's legality.

This is AI-generated. Read the article for full context. Report any errors.

Claim: The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s signing of the national budget was unconstitutional.

Rating: FALSE

Why we fact-checked this: A graphic shared by the Facebook page Makata Ng Bayan on November 1 shows an edited photo of Marcos, former chief justice Alexander Gesmundo, and Ombudsman Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla. 

The text on the graphic reads: “Sinabi na ng Supreme Court na Unconstitutional ang Pagpirma ni Marcos sa Budget! Tungkulin ng Ombudsman, DOJ at COA mag Imbestiga, Pero bakit di nila ginawa? Mga Duwag ba sila o Mukhang Pera?”

(The Supreme Court has already said Marcos’s signing of the budget was unconstitutional! It’s the duty of the Ombudsman, Department of Justice (DOJ), and Commission on Audit (COA) to investigate, but why didn’t they? Are they cowards or money-hungry?)

At the time of writing, the post had 4,900 reactions, 1,200 comments, and 2,400 shares.

The facts: The SC did declare national budgets unconstitutional, but because of what Congress added to them, not because of the President’s signature.

In a ruling released on October 20, written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the Court voted 13-2 to strike down the 2024 and 2025 national budgets, along with two rules in this year’s budget on how standby funds can be released.

The Court said Congress is not allowed to make the budget bigger than what the President proposed. In 2024, lawmakers added P449.5 billion in standby funds to the budget, and P17.99 billion more for the 2025 DPWH Special Road Fund. (READ: 5 practical effects of SC ruling on unprogrammed appropriations) 

Not yet final: Court spokesperson Camille Ting said the ruling is not yet final, and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) could file a motion for reconsideration within 15 days from notice. 

The OSG has since filed a motion for clarification and partial reconsideration, signed by Solicitor General Darlene Berberabe. The motion asks the Court to spell out which projects already funded under the budgets can continue, and to declare that the 2025 Special Road Fund increase was constitutional. 

It also asked the Court not to count standby funds under the same spending limit as the rest of the budget, and to treat its new rules on releasing those funds as guidance rather than binding requirements.

No ongoing investigations: As of writing, the Ombudsman, DOJ, and COA have not opened a formal probe. The Ombudsman is also waiting for the SC’s final decision.

In 2025, it temporarily put on hold a graft complaint against House leaders over the 2025 budget until the Court resolved the constitutional question with finality.

The Court said officials behind the budget increases could still face criminal, civil, or administrative cases, unless the proper court or body finds they acted in good faith. On October 26, Remulla announced a “budget watch” and said he would form a team to study the decision and determine who may be held liable. 

Vice President Sara Duterte said Marcos and Congress should answer for approving the budgets, while Malacañang said it disagreed with parts of the ruling. Senator Panfilo Lacson and Representative Leila de Lima welcomed the decision as a win for accountability. – Jake Gomez/Rappler.com