Monsod flags abuse in 'unprogrammed' funding

The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard pointed arguments questioning the legality of “unprogrammed appropriations,” with economist and former National Economic and Development Authority chief Solita Collas-Monsod warning that the system resembles a modern form of pork barrel that undermines development and accountability.

During oral arguments on consolidated petitions challenging the national budget, Monsod, appearing as amicus curiae (friend of the court), framed the issue bluntly: abuse of public funds in the budgeting process deprives the country of critical development gains and disproportionately harms the poor.

“At the heart of this matter is the abuse of legislative and executive power for private gain,” Monsod said, linking corruption in the budget process to missed targets in income, health, and education.

The case stemmed from a petition filed in January questioning the constitutionality of the unprogrammed appropriations (UA) in the 2026 General Appropriations Act.

UA are standby funds intended to be released only upon the occurrence of specific fiscal conditions and subject to validation mechanisms.

‘Robin Hood in reverse’

At the hearing, Monsod described the UA system as “Robin Hood in reverse,” where public funds meant to uplift vulnerable sectors are instead lost to inefficiencies and questionable allocations.

She stressed that these “opportunity costs” weaken the government’s ability to meet its Philippine Development Plan (PDP) targets, particularly in reducing poverty and improving social services.

“If the budget fails, the plan fails,” she said.

Earlier, counsel for the petitioners argued that the budget process itself is being distorted.

Lawyer Jericho Salenga told the Court that lawmakers have effectively altered the nature of appropriations after the General Appropriations Act (GAA) is passed—treating unprogrammed funds as if they were already programmed and ready for spending.

He questioned the growing use of such funds in recent budgets, saying the practice blurs legal distinctions and opens the door to misuse.

Representing the government, Solicitor General Darlene Marie Berberabe defended the process, likening the national budget to a family’s financial plan.

She said some appropriations are “aspirational” and depend on available revenues, arguing that flexibility is necessary to respond to changing economic conditions.

‘New pork barrel’ system?

Monsod, however, pushed back, outlining what she described as the “evolution of a more sophisticated pork barrel system” embedded within the budget.

She noted that while the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) had been struck down, similar mechanisms have re-emerged through large infrastructure allocations and unprogrammed appropriations.

Among Monsod’s key concerns:

• Project selection is increasingly decided during budget preparation, limiting scrutiny
• Lawmakers can still influence funding priorities
• Unprogrammed appropriations serve as a “repository” for lump-sum insertions

She also flagged a 2024 budget provision that allowed the use of funds from government-owned corporations, including PhilHealth, although this was removed in the 2025 budget following scrutiny.

Transparency, accountability at risk

Monsod warned that unprogrammed appropriations dilute Congress’ power of the purse and weaken oversight.

She said these funds:

• Reduce transparency in public spending
• Increase discretionary allocations
• Blur institutional accountability
• Undermine fiscal discipline

“Higher-than-planned spending could lead to larger annual budget deficits,” she said, adding that such practices risk derailing debt and deficit targets.

Development targets ‘off track’

Monsod also noted that key economic targets under the PDP have not been met in recent years, including GDP growth and deficit goals.

She warned that continued inefficiencies in budgeting could worsen the country’s standing in critical indicators such as learning poverty, health outcomes, and income levels—areas where the Philippines already lags behind regional peers.

“Development targets cannot be met. The Filipino people are robbed,” she said.

At the core of the petitions are questions on whether Congress and the Executive have overstepped constitutional limits in handling public funds.

The consolidated cases before the Court are:

• G.R. No. 271059 (Lagman v. Congress of the Philippines)
• G.R. No. 271347 (Pimentel v. Bersamin)
• G.R. No. E-02472 (Filipinos for Peace, Justice and Progress Movement Inc. v. House of Representatives)
• G.R. No. E-04036 (Erice v. Senate)

—MCG, GMA News