Mall employees, tenants and agency hires queue to receive 5 kilos of rice and P5,000 financial assistance during mall tour distribution of AKAP (Ayuda Para sa Kapos ang Kita Program) , initiated by House Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez and implemented by Department of Social Welfare and Development, at SM Mall of Asia in Pasay City. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO / RICHARD A. REYES
MANILA, Philippines 鈥� Several groups and individuals on Friday challenged three provisions of the 2025 national government spending law, including the Ayuda sa Kapos and Kita Program (Akap).
Aside from Akap, the petitioners also challenged the 2025 General Appropriations Act鈥檚 (GAA) (Republic Act No. 12116) provisions on public works and the Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (PhilHealth).
The 92-page petition was filed before the Supreme Court on Friday by the 1Sambayan coalition, former Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and former Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales among the petitioners.
鈥淸Akap], as it is crafted under the 2025 [General Appropriations Act], has the badges of a congressional pork barrel,鈥� the petition stated.
The petitioners argued that Akap, aside from being a 鈥渓ast minute insertion,鈥� also violates the separation of powers since it allows Congress to access the funds even after the law has already been passed.
They pointed out that the P26-billion program allows legislators to 鈥渞efer鈥� their constituents to the DSWD to receive the financial aid.
READ: DSWD: 鈥楢yuda鈥� monitoring system readied
Akap, a program under the Department of Social Workers and Development (DSWD), aims to extend financial assistance ranging from P3,000 to P5,000 to those earning below minimum wage.
The DSWD earlier said it will follow a stringent verification process and post the names of beneficiaries on its official website and social media platforms for transparency.
READ:
The petitioners also sought to declare as 鈥減artially unconstitutional鈥� the provisions under the 2025 GAA allocating a higher budget to the Department of Public Works And Highways (DPWH) compared to the Department of Education (DepEd).
They argued that the DepEd鈥檚 P737-billion budget being lower than the DPWH鈥檚 P1.1-trillion allocation was a clear violation of Article 17 of the Constitution, which mandates 鈥渉ighest budgetary priority to education.