SolGen seeks dismissal of SC petition vs 2025 budget
The government’s chief lawyer Menardo Guevarra is asking the Supreme Court to dismiss the petition questioning the constitutionality of the 2025 national budget signed by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. last December. —HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines- Citing “fatal procedural defects” and “utter lack of merit,” government lawyers have asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the petition questioning the constitutionality of the General Appropriations Act (GAA) for 2025 signed by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. last December.
“The petition before this Honorable Court does not represent 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,” Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra said in his office’s 89-page comment dated February 27 but only made public Friday.
The petition, filed by Davao Representative Isidro Ungab and former Executive Secretary Vic Rodriguez, raised several violations of the 1987 Constitution with the approval of the 2025 budget, including the supposed blank items in the bicameral conference committee report of the spending plan.
READ: Solon, other petitioners ask Supreme Court to nullify 2025 GAA
Petitioners said the Bicameral Conference Committee (BCC) Report showed several blanks, particularly the budget allocations for the National Irrigation Administration (NIA), Department of Agriculture, and the Philippine Coconut Authority.
“Here, the Bicameral Conference Committee not only made several amendments to the 2025 General Appropriations Bill but left blanks in their report…which is very dubious and dangerous as the budgets for the said offices and programs remain to be undetermined,” read the petition.
But Guevarra said the claim of a blatant violation of the Constitution “is without legal basis and, in fact, is a bare assertion without citation.”
He said the petitioners failed to point out specific provisions of the Constitution that were violated.
“Petitioners cannot do so because, in fact, there exists no prohibition,” Guevarra said.
He added: “Whatever doubt petitioners have against the contents of the GAB, whether they were duly deliberated and agreed upon by both houses, and any claim that anything anomalous occurred within the BCC, falls in the face of the enrolled bill.”
The enrolled bill, he said, has been “transmitted to the President, was complete in itself, contained no blanks, and was duly approved by both Houses of Congress.”
“Petitioners have given this Honorable Court no reason to eschew the courtesy owed to a co-equal branch of government and look beyond the enrolled bill to the Congress’ internal proceedings,” said Guevarra.
