13-2 SC Ruling on National Budget Does Not Make Marcos Signing Unconstitutional

Supreme Court Faults Congress, Not Marcos, in Budget Ruling

When a graphic began circulating on Facebook via the page Makata Ng Bayan, it carried a stark accusation. The post claimed that the Supreme Court had declared President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s signing of the national budget unconstitutional, openly questioning why the Office of the Ombudsman, the Department of Justice, and the Commission on Audit had yet to launch investigations into what it framed as official complicity.

The core claim is entirely false, according to reporting by Rappler. The high court did not strike down the budget because of the President’s signature, nor has it finalized a ruling that brands the executive’s approval illegal. Instead, in a decision released on October 20 and written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the Court voted 13-2 to fault Congress for inflating the national expenditure plan beyond the limits proposed by the executive branch.

The Mechanics of Legislative Inflation

The constitutional friction centers on the boundary between legislative proposal and legislative amendment. According to the Supreme Court’s ruling, lawmakers crossed a legal line by making the national budget larger than what the President originally submitted. In 2024, lawmakers added P449.5 billion in standby funds to the financial plan, followed by an additional P17.99 billion for the DPWH Special Road Fund in the 2025 budget. Alongside those monetary increases, the Court struck down two specific rules governing how standby funds can be released.

Because the decision is not yet final, no formal probes have been opened by oversight agencies. Court spokesperson Camille Ting noted that the Office of the Solicitor General retained a standard window to file a motion for reconsideration. Solicitor General Darlene Berberabe subsequently submitted a motion for clarification and partial reconsideration, asking the high court to clarify which funded projects can legally proceed, to rule the 2025 Special Road Fund increase constitutional, and to treat release guidelines for standby funds as advisory guidance rather than binding restrictions.

Ombudsman Shelves Graft Complaint over Disputed Budget Plans

The Ombudsman temporarily shelved a graft complaint against House leaders regarding the 2025 budget until the constitutional questions receive a final resolution. On October 26, Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla announced the formation of a “budget watch” team to analyze the decision and establish liability. Meanwhile, Vice President Sara Duterte argued that both the President and Congress should answer for approving the disputed spending plans.

Senator Panfilo Lacson and Representative Leila de Lima publicly welcomed the decision as a win for accountability, while Malacañang formally stated its disagreement with specific portions of the Court’s findings. As the Office of the Solicitor General presses for modifications, the ultimate legality of billions in unprogrammed appropriations hangs in the balance, awaiting final word from the judiciary.