Tinio urges House to recall 2027 budget from Senate, warns of unconstitutional provisions

Members of the House of Representatives gather at Batasang Pambansa in Quezon City for the scheduled plenary discussion of the Articles of Impeachment filed against Vice President  Sara Duterte on May 11, 2026.   Jonathan Cellona, ABS-CBN News MANILA — ACT Teachers party-list Rep. Antonio Tinio on Friday urged the House of Representatives to recall the proposed 2027 national budget from the Senate, saying provisions in the House-approved spending plan could also be declared unconstitutional following a recent Supreme Court ruling.

In an interview on ANC’s Headstart, Tinio said the House should correct questionable provisions in its version of the budget instead of leaving the task solely to the Senate.

“I think it’s important and necessary so that the House can clean up its own mess,” Tinio said.

He cited what he described as unconstitutional conditions for the release of unprogrammed appropriations, significant cuts to foreign-assisted projects to accommodate congressional insertions, and prohibited lump-sum allocations, including financial assistance to local government units.

“Because if you look at the budget that was passed by the House, House Bill 10858, there are significant parts that could be declared unconstitutional as well. So including, for example, the unconstitutional triggers on the use of unprogrammed appropriations, the way in which foreign-assisted projects were cut significantly in order to replace them with a lot of congressional insertions to increase the funding for DPWH projects,” Tinio said. 

“In other words, there are many things in the budget that was passed by the House that the Supreme Court has called out and would therefore risk, if this were not corrected, would risk many portions of the budget for 2027 as well,” he added.

Tinio appealed to lawmakers to study the high court’s ruling and correct the provisions before the proposed budget advances further.

“We don’t want yet another budget that will be declared unconstitutional,” he said, noting that two General Appropriations Acts under the Marcos administration had been declared unconstitutional, while certain provisions of the 2026 budget had also been struck down.

The Supreme Court recently declared the 2024 and 2025 General Appropriations Acts unconstitutional over congressional increases to appropriations, while also voiding provisions governing the release of unprogrammed funds under the 2026 budget.

The high court found that Congress increased the 2024 budget’s unprogrammed appropriations by P449.5 billion, effectively raising the total appropriations beyond the President’s recommendation. It also struck down the 2025 budget over a P17.99-billion increase to the Department of Public Works and Highways’ Special Road Fund. 

The court also ruled that the bicameral conference committee’s authority over the budget is limited to reconciling disagreeing provisions in the House and Senate versions, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability in its proceedings. 

Tinio said this limitation could affect efforts to correct the 2027 budget if the Senate does not sufficiently address the questionable provisions.

“If the Senate does not make corrections or is not thorough enough, then the Bicam could be limited in its authority to address certain issues,” he said.

Senate Finance Committee chair JV Ejercito had expressed reservations about recalling the budget, citing the possible impact on the legislative timetable. 

Tinio, however, said the process could be completed relatively quickly if Congress prepared the necessary amendments during its break.

“I think it’s better that the House itself corrects its own actions,” he said.

Tinio also argued that the Supreme Court ruling strengthened the basis for holding officials accountable for the passage and implementation of unconstitutional budget provisions, including President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

The high court said authors, proponents and implementers of the unconstitutional provisions could face civil, criminal or administrative liability, unless the proper tribunals explicitly find that they acted in good faith. 

Tinio specifically pointed to the Strengthening Assistance for Government Infrastructure and Social Programs (SAGIP), which the Supreme Court identified as a prohibited lump-sum appropriation in the 2024 and 2025 budgets. 

The court said it had become a repository for allocations to DPWH infrastructure projects, including flood control projects. 

“The Supreme Court decision made the connection itself that the unconstitutional acts directly led to and made possible the massive insertions that led to the flood control corruption,” Tinio said.

He said the officials responsible for introducing and implementing the provisions should be held accountable, arguing that failure to do so could allow similar practices to recur.

Tinio said the Makabayan bloc’s impeachment complaint against Marcos, which it endorsed in January, had been affirmed by the ruling, particularly its allegations concerning the use of unprogrammed appropriations in the 2024 and 2025 budgets.

Asked whether the bloc would file another impeachment complaint once the one-year bar lapses in January 2027, Tinio said, “Wait and see.”

He added that the complaint already filed included allegations concerning the use of unprogrammed appropriations and the President’s role in disbursing those funds.