On a Thursday in late October, the Office of the Solicitor General announced that it would return to the Supreme Court, asking for clarification and partial reconsideration of the October 7 ruling on unprogrammed appropriations, the contingent reserves held within the national budget. The Court had found that certain congressional increases in those funds, and in specific special accounts, were unconstitutional, while affirming that such funds are not unlawful in themselves when they meet defined conditions. The OSG accepts the decision but questions whether some of its safeguards, though soun
OSG Seeks Supreme Court Clarification on Unprogrammed Appropriations Ruling
Safeguards required by the Constitution versus those left to Congress and the Executive
Mark
The OSG says it accepts the ruling. So why go back to the Court at all?
Mimi
Because its objection is to particular conditions, not the outcome. It says some safeguards may reach into budgetary discretion that belongs to Congress and the Executive.
Mark
What exactly is the line it's drawing?
Mimi
Between safeguards the Constitution requires and safeguards that Congress and the Executive are entitled to design themselves.
Luke
Worth noting that the OSG hasn't yet filed anything. This is a stated intention, and the report doesn't say which conditions it will challenge.
Mark
And the twelve separate opinions? Do they signal a divided Court?
Mimi
They all concurred in the final judgment. Where they differed was the specific flaws, the conference committee's authority, and the consequences of striking provisions down.
Luke
Right, so concurrence on the result, not on the reasoning. The OSG is the one calling the case complex; that's its reading, not the Court's.
Mark
What happens to programs already funded under the struck-down provisions?
Mimi
Under operative fact, irreversible 2024 and 2025 programs carried out in good faith stay valid for beneficiaries.
Luke
That covers 2024 and 2025 as described. The source doesn't say how 2026 is treated, and we shouldn't guess.
El Pulso
- The Supreme Court struck down unauthorized congressional increases in unprogrammed funds across the 2024, 2025, and 2026 budgets, unsettling how public money is held in reserve.
- The Solicitor General accepts the verdict but warns that some conditions could trespass on the budgetary discretion of Congress and the Executive.
- Twelve separate opinions accompany the ruling, exposing sharp disagreements over the constitutional flaws, the bicameral conference committee's authority, and the practical fallout.
- Irreversible programs carried out in good faith under the 2024 and 2025 budgets remain intact through the doctrine of operative fact, while the OSG seeks clarification to narrow the conditions.
On a Thursday in late October, the Office of the Solicitor General announced that it would return to the Supreme Court, asking for clarification and partial reconsideration of the October 7 ruling on unprogrammed appropriations, the contingent reserves held within the national budget. The Court had found that certain congressional increases in those funds, and in specific special accounts, were unconstitutional, while affirming that such funds are not unlawful in themselves when they meet defined conditions. The OSG accepts the decision but questions whether some of its safeguards, though sound in purpose, reach into powers the Constitution assigns to Congress and the Executive. The coming months will reveal whether the Court refines the boundary it drew between safeguards the Constitution demands and those that belong to the discretion of the other branches.
On Thursday, October 22, the Office of the Solicitor General announced it would ask the Supreme Court to clarify and partially reconsider its ruling on unprogrammed appropriations, the contingent items held in the national budget. The October 7 decision struck down provisions in the 2024, 2025, and 2026 General Appropriations Acts that allowed unauthorized congressional increases in those funds and in certain special accounts. At the same time, the Court made clear that unprogrammed appropriations are not unconstitutional in themselves, so long as they meet specific conditions.
The OSG respects the decision and agrees that safeguards are essential to transparency, accountability, and fiscal discipline. Its concern is distinguishing the safeguards the Constitution itself requires from those that properly belong to the budgetary powers granted to Congress and the Executive. That distinction is the heart of the planned filing, which asks that the safeguards not unintentionally override that discretion.
The ruling was not one-sided. The Court upheld the President's power to certify House Bill No. 8980 as urgent and Congress's freedom to act on such certifications, but found that lawmakers violated Article VI, Section 25(1) by raising the total proposed budget across programmed and unprogrammed allocations. Still, irreversible programs under the 2024 and 2025 budgets, carried out in good faith, remain valid for their beneficiaries under the doctrine of operative fact.
The twelve separate opinions show the justices agreed that unprogrammed appropriations are a legitimate budgetary tool, but they differed on the specific flaws, the reach of the bicameral conference committee's authority, and the practical effects of striking down particular provisions. What remains to be seen is whether the Court, after weighing the OSG's request and those opinions, will change any of the conditions it set on unprogrammed funds.
On Thursday, October 22, the Office of the Solicitor General put out a statement saying it will go back to the Supreme Court. It plans to ask for clarification and partial reconsideration of the Court's ruling on unprogrammed appropriations, the contingent items in the national budget.
The ruling came on October 7. In it, the Court declared unconstitutional certain provisions of the 2024, 2025, and 2026 General Appropriations Acts. The provisions covered unauthorized congressional increases in unprogrammed funds and in specific special accounts. The Court also made clear that unprogrammed appropriations are not unconstitutional in themselves, provided they meet specific conditions.
The OSG says it respects the decision. Its objection is to some of the conditions the Court attached. In its statement, the office said it agrees that safeguards are essential to transparency, accountability, and fiscal discipline in the use of public funds. The difficulty, it said, lies in separating the safeguards the Constitution itself requires from those whose design belongs to the powers the Constitution gives Congress and the Executive.
That distinction is the core of the planned filing. The OSG said it will ask the Court to clarify and reconsider parts of the ruling so that the prescribed safeguards do not inadvertently trample the budgetary discretion entrusted to the legislative and executive branches.
The office also pointed to the shape of the decision itself. Twelve separate opinions were issued alongside the main ruling, which the OSG took as a sign of how complex the case is. It said it will carefully consider those opinions in deciding its next step.
The main ruling was not one-sided. The Court affirmed the President's discretion to certify House Bill No. 8980 as urgent and upheld Congress's freedom to act on such certifications. But it found that lawmakers violated Article VI, Section 25(1) of the Constitution by raising the total proposed budget across both programmed and unprogrammed allocations.
Despite that violation, the Court applied the doctrine of operative fact. Irreversible programs under the 2024 and 2025 General Appropriations Acts that were carried out in good faith remain valid and intact for their beneficiaries.
The justices who filed separate opinions concurred in the final judgment but offered distinct legal views. They agreed that unprogrammed appropriations are a valid budgetary tool. They diverged on the specific constitutional flaws identified, on the scope of authority granted to the bicameral conference committee, and on the practical consequences of striking down particular budget provisions.
What to watch is whether the Court, after reviewing the OSG's request and the twelve opinions, changes any of the conditions it placed on unprogrammed funds.
Citas Notables
The OSG agrees that safeguards are essential to ensure transparency, accountability, and fiscal discipline in the use of public funds.— Office of the Solicitor General
The OSG will carefully consider the separate opinions in its further action.— Office of the Solicitor General
Quieres la nota completa?
Lee el original en Philstar.com ↗
Politics & Governance