A member of the minority bloc at the House of Representatives on Saturday said the dissenting opinion of Supreme Court Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando strengthens its long-standing call to remove unprogrammed funds from the national budget starting 2026.
Hernando, in a separate concurring and dissenting opinion on the ruling involving excess PhilHealth funds, said unprogrammed appropriations are unconstitutional and create “an unregulated space where discretion replaces discipline.”
BH Party-list Rep. Robert Nazal said the opinion supports concerns the group has raised since the start of budget deliberations.
BH was among the first to call for the abolition of unprogrammed funds, warning that they serve as a “backdoor for discretionary spending.”
“Justice Hernando’s opinion makes clear what we have been warning all along—this mechanism is prone to abuse and should no longer appear in the 2026 budget,” Nazal said.
Nazal’s group also stressed that removing unprogrammed funds will not limit government flexibility, as Congress can always pass a supplemental budget when excess revenues become available.
This, the group said, is the correct and transparent way to authorize additional spending without creating loopholes.
Nazal said Hernando’s position reinforces the view that all spending must be fully programmed, have clear funding sources, and undergo full congressional scrutiny.
The group added that the opinion underscores the need to end budget practices that “blur accountability and create opportunities for hidden allocations.”
The party-list group reiterated its push for a 2026 national budget with zero unprogrammed funds, saying the Court’s language “leaves no doubt” about the risks of allowing such provisions to continue.
It added that government must now move toward a budget system where every peso is traceable and openly discussed, saying the public deserves a budget that upholds discipline, transparency, and constitutional fidelity.
