ESPNWhy Warriors-Lakers was the quiet end of an incredible NBA eraInquirer6 nabbed as cops seize P2.1-M ‘shabu’ in Metro ManilaESPN DeportesCómo le fue a Flick en los Clásicos y contra MourinhoThe Jerusalem PostIlhan Omar to move out of DC home following federal raid, accuses Trump of political intimidationDaily MaverickDISEASE DISASTER: Angry neighbours, game sales in jeopardy as Addo’s foot-and-mouth disease crisis deepensInquirer EntertainmentAngela Muji, Rabin Angeles show there’s more to them than ‘Dating Alys Perez’Bollywood HungamaRs. 3,170 for ONE ticket! Ranbir Kapoor’s Ramayana commands SHOCKING prices for IMAX recliners in Mumbai; Insignia rates touch Rs. 2,370ZDF heuteAktuelle Pressemitteilungen des ZDFVariety‘The Odyssey’ Artisans Talk Bringing Christopher Nolan’s Epic to Life With Practical Sets and Thousands of Costumes at Middleburg Film FestPremium TimesOnline Global Leadership Conference: Leadership that holds under pressureConsequenceAnuel AA Announces Corridos Album, Maluma Reveals Plans to Explore Música MexicanaSRF NewsKandidatur für den Bundesrat – Bundesrat: Tessiner Ständerat Marco Chiesa steht zur Verfügung
The Daily Newsstand · Free, Always
Thursday, October 22, 2026

Gatchalian: Senate will comply with SC ruling on budgets’ unconstitutionality

Translate
Gatchalian warns vs wacky shots in ‘sacred’ session hall
Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian (Photo by NIÑO JESUS ORBETA / INQUIRER.net)

MANILA, Philippines—While saying that the Senate will comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling, Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian on Thursday expressed concern over its decision to strike down certain provisions governing the release of unprogrammed appropriations (UA). 

The high tribunal earlier declared key provisions of the 2024, 2025 and 2026 national budgets unconstitutional for violating constitutional limits on government spending.

According to Gatchalian, the Senate will follow the decision to ensure that the proposed P7.2-trillion national budget is constitutional.

Article continues after this advertisement

“I told si Chairman JV (Ejercito) that we would comply with the Supreme Court ruling,” he said, referring to Sen. JV Ejercito, chairman of the Senate committee on finance.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

“In fact, if we look at the 2026 budget, it is not unconstitutional except for those two provisions that still need to be clarified,” the Senate leader said in an interview.

“Those two provisions concern the spirit of unprogrammed appropriations—specifically, excess revenues and new taxes,” he noted.

Gatchalian was referring to Sections 1a and 1b of the Special Provisions of the 2026 General Appropriations Act (GAA), which authorize the release of the UA when the government has excess or new revenue collections from non-tax sources.

While clarifying that the UA is not unconstitutional, the high tribunal prohibited the implementation of the two provisions. 

Article continues after this advertisement

But Gatchalian said this needs to be clarified, stressing that the two provisions are the reasons why the UA exists.

“That’s why we have unprogrammed appropriations because of excess and new (revenues). If you remove those, there’s no more use for unprogrammed,” he pointed out.

Article continues after this advertisement

He made this statement during the hearing of the Senate subcommittee on finance on the proposed Department of Budget and Management’s (DBM) budget next year.

Budget Secretary Kim Robert de Leon, who defended the budget of his office, told lawmakers that the third condition of the special provisions still allows the release of unprogframmed funds for foreign-assisted projects.

Sen. JV Ejercito, chairman of the Senate committee on finance, later joined the discussion.

He asked the DBM what amendments or adjustments Congress needs to make to prevent any constitutional infirmities in the crafting of the 2027 budget.

“Of course, in light of the Supreme Court ruling, we want to make sure we don’t make any mistakes in what we’re doing. What do we need to amend or adjust?” Ejercito asked the DBM chief.

De Leon agreed that the two sections were, indeed, affected by the ruling, as they were expressly declared unconstitutional by the high court.

 “But one thing we can assure is the executive is not releasing anything as of now, triggered by Sections 1a and 1b as covered by the Supreme Court decision,” the DBM chief added. /apl

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

(Note: The English translations in the article were AI-generated.)

View the original on Inquirer →

KioskNews shows a cleaned-up reading view extracted from the publisher’s page — the original always lives on their site, not ours.