MANILA, Philippines 鈥� Cause-oriented groups and other individuals petitioned the Supreme Court (SC) on Friday to declare certain provisions of the 2025 national budget unconstitutional.
In a petition for certiorari, they challenged the absence of a subsidy for the state health insurer Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth), arguing that it violates the Constitutional provision on the right to health.
READ: PhilHealth鈥檚 zero subsidy for 2025 an insult to members 鈥� group
They also questioned the budget allocation for education, which was much lower than the budget given to the Department of Public Works and Highways.
Another provision that petitioners want to declare unconstitutional is the provision on post-enactment and enactment identification and endorsement of the beneficiaries of the Ayuda sa Kapos ang Kita Program (AKAP).
While the petition is pending, petitioners asked the SC to issue a temporary restraining order against the enforcement of the 2025 budget.
Petitioners include the 1Sambayan coalition, party-list group Sanlakas, Advocates for National Interest, former Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, health advocate Minguita Padilla, and University of the Philippines professors Cielo Magno and Dante Gatmaytan.
The respondents are the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Office of the Executive Secretary, the Department of Budget and Management, the Department of Finance, and the Department of Public Works and Highways.
Key violations cited
In their 92-page petition, they pointed out that the Constitution states that education shall have the highest budgetary priority.
However, they argue that this mandate was disregarded in the 2025 budget, with the Department of Education (DepEd) receiving only P737,084,501. The budget was made to appear higher at P1.0559 trillion due to the inclusion of budgets from other agencies related to skills training.
Meanwhile, the DPWH has a budget of P1,113,764,447, making infrastructure the highest-funded sector, violating the Constitution.
The 鈥渁llocation for the infrastructure sector was the highest, in violation of the Constitution,鈥� the petition stated.
READ: Palace maintains DepEd has highest allocation in 2025 budget
Health budget concerns
On the zero budget for PhilHealth, petitioners said it violates two constitutional provisions: Article II, Section 15, which states that 鈥� the State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them.鈥�
Another constitutional provision allegedly violated and mentioned by the petitioners is Article XIII, which mandates the state to provide an integrated and comprehensive approach to health development to make essential health and social services accessible and affordable to all.
鈥淭he legislature does not have the discretion to determine when, or whether, they shall be effective and cannot be rendered entirely meaningless by simply refusing to pass the needed implementing statute,鈥� the petitioners said.
鈥楶ork barrel鈥� allegations
The petition alleged that a big chunk of the 2025 budget was diverted to projects and programs that effectively constitute pork barrel as it would allow politicians, including legislators, to 鈥渆ffectively control certain aspects of the funds utilization through various post-enactment measures.鈥�
鈥淩espondents committed grave abuse of discretion in diminishing the share of the education sector and eliminating budgetary support for PhilHealth while providing allocations to pork barrel,鈥� the petitioners said.
Early this year, former Executive Secretary Vic Rodriguez, Davao 3rd district Rep. Isidro Ungab, and several others filed a petition to nullify the 2025 budget due to zero allocation to PhilHealth and allegations of blank items in the bicameral report.