SolGen asks SC to junk petition questioning 2025 budget’s constitutionality

MANILA, Philippines — The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss a petition challenging the constitutionality of the 2025 national budget.

In an 89-page comment dated February 27, the OSG argued that the petition does not meet the requirements for judicial review, citing the lack of an “actual case or controversy” and other procedural deficiencies.

“The petition before this Honorable Court does not present a genuine concern for constitutional integrity but appears to be an attempt to merely impede the implementation of a law that is vital to the nation’s progress and the well-being of its people,” the prefatory read. 

Rep. Isidro Ungab (Davao, 1st District), former executive secretary Vic Rodriguez, and six others filed the petition on January 27, seeking to declare the P6.325-trillion national budget unconstitutional. They called the General Appropriations Act (GAA) “illegal and criminal.”

RELATED: Supreme Court urged to declare 2025 budget unconstitutional

The petition for certiorari and prohibition challenges the budget over alleged “blank line items,” violations of the Universal Health Care Act (UHCA), the lack of priority given to education funding and the removal of the government’s allocation for the Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (PhilHealth).

On budget's alleged blanks

However, Congress has repeatedly clarified that the blank spaces were not part of the enrolled budget bill sent to President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. or the signed GAA. 

House appropriations acting Chair Stella Quimbo previously said the blanks appeared only in the bicameral conference committee report and were merely a computational matter handled ministerially by technical staff.

RELATED: House panel: 'Blank' items in 2025 budget just typos  

The OSG reiterated this as well, saying that only the signed national budget is “binding,” whereas any previous version of the budget “is not actionable.”

“Congress has faithfully exercised its mandate to appropriate public funds in strict accordance to the Constitution. Contrary to petitioners’ unfounded insinuations, Congress has not, in any manner, abdicated its constitutional role,” the prefatory read. 

On PhilHealth’s zero subsidy

Meanwhile, the OSG argued that the lack of PhilHealth subsidy does not infringe on the people’s right to health, as the state insurer can still fulfill its mandate to implement health laws.

“The promotion of the right to health is not the exclusive function of PhilHealth alone,” the comment read. 

It added that Congress has the “constitutional discretion” to determine the “necessary” appropriations for PhilHealth, citing Section 37 of the UHCA, which mandates that funding for the law’s implementation be included in the GAA under the Department of Health (DOH) and the national government subsidy to PhilHealth.

PhilHealth’s premium contributions and government subsidies are just two of the funding sources outlined in the UHCA’s appropriations provision. 

“To suggest that PhilHealth’s zero subsidy ‘would have adverse effects upon the attainment of the UHCA’s envisioned health system reforms,’ as the petitioners do, is to completely ignore not only the shared roles of PhilHealth and the DOH but also the whole-of-government framework under the UHCA,” the OSG added. 

For the agency, the phrase “amount necessary” in the provision serves as a qualifier, meaning Congress will allocate funds only if it deems them necessary.

Government subsidy, however, is meant to cover the premium contributions of indirect contributors like qualified indigents, senior citizens, persons with disabilities and solo parents. 

On the education budget

The OSG also commented on constitutional concerns over the education budget, which drew public criticism for funding cuts during deliberations and the inclusion of government agencies, such as military academies, under the education sector.

What critics are pointing out is that while the education sector's budget stands at P1.056 trillion, this amount already includes education-related infrastructure projects under the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and the second tranche of salary increases under the Miscellaneous Personnel Benefits Fund.

In comparison, the DPWH alone received a budget of P1.034 trillion.

RELATED: What counts as education spending? Teachers mull legal action over 2025 budget

The OSG maintained that allocating funds to various agencies within the education sector still complies with the constitutional mandate to prioritize education, arguing that these agencies provide academic instruction and training to students.

“The term ‘highest budget priority’ does not necessarily equate to the highest budgetary allocation so as to give the education department the highest budgetary allocation compared to other government sectors,” the OSG said.

“For as long as the education budgetary requirement is first covered, Congress is free to allocate funds depending on the imperatives of the national interest and for the attainment of other state policies or objectives,” it added. 

The Supreme Court on Wednesday, March 6, ordered Quimbo and members of the technical working group to appear at the oral arguments for the petition on April 1.