Solicitor General Darlene Berberabe told the Supreme Court that President Bongbong Marcos Jr.’s approval is not required for the release of unprogrammed funds under the General Appropriations Act, during oral arguments on the constitutionality of provisions in the 2024–2026 national budget.
Arguing before the Court, Berberabe said the GAA itself provides the legal basis for the Department of Budget and Management to issue Special Allotment Release Orders once specific conditions are met. These include excess revenue collections or the availability of new financing such as loans or grants. She maintained that the authority to execute these releases comes directly from the law governing the national budget.
The position drew immediate scrutiny from the bench, placing the structure of executive accountability under focus. Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen raised the implications during oral arguments. “In other words, the DBM secretary is no longer the alter ego of the President. The DBM secretary is co-equal with the President. Or is that a mistaken assumption?” Leonen said.
The exchange brought attention to how authority is exercised within the executive branch, particularly on whether budget execution can proceed without direct presidential clearance and how responsibility is defined when funds are released.
Berberabe stood by the government’s position and reiterated that “the GAA has authorized the DBM… to perform this responsibility,” pointing to statutory authority as the basis for the release process.
At the center of the case are unprogrammed appropriations, a pool of standby funds embedded in the national budget that can only be activated under defined fiscal triggers. These include revenue collections exceeding original targets, approval of foreign-assisted projects, or the generation of additional financing.
Once these conditions are met, the DBM may issue allotments to agencies for implementation, allowing funds to be released within the fiscal year even if they were not part of the initially programmed expenditures.
Petitioners have challenged the mechanism before the Court, raising concerns that it allows the release of funds beyond what was originally set in the budget and may test constitutional limits on appropriations.
The Supreme Court is now reviewing whether the structure laid out in the GAA complies with these limits and how authority over public funds is exercised within the executive branch.
The ruling is expected to define the extent of the President’s role in budget execution and clarify how far statutory authority can govern the release of public funds without direct presidential approval.
