The Office of the Solicitor General will seek clarification from the Supreme Court on restrictions governing unprogrammed appropriations after receiving the court’s decision on consolidated cases involving the national budgets for 2024 and 2025 and certain provisions of the 2026 budget.
Solicitor General Darlene Berberabe confirmed the development during a Malacañang briefing Thursday.
Berberabe said the OSG accepts the Supreme Court’s central ruling that unprogrammed appropriations are not automatically unconstitutional as a budgeting mechanism.
However, the government’s legal office wants clarification on which restrictions imposed by the court are directly required by the Constitution and which matters should be left to Congress and the executive branch under their constitutional powers.
The OSG recognizes the importance of the restrictions in promoting transparency, accountability and prudent use of public funds while respecting the separation of powers among government branches, Berberabe said.
She added that the office is studying 12 separate opinions issued by the justices alongside the decision to determine its next steps.
The case, Lagman v. Congress of the Philippines, concerns challenges involving unprogrammed appropriations in the national budgets for 2024 and 2025, as well as selected provisions of the 2026 budget.
Unprogrammed appropriations are budget allocations whose release depends on specified conditions rather than being automatically available for spending.
The OSG’s request for clarification comes ahead of the deadline for filing a motion for reconsideration. Berberabe said the office has until Nov. 4 to submit the motion challenging the Supreme Court decision.
The OSG has not yet announced its final course of action as it continues reviewing the ruling and the accompanying opinions.
