THREE CAUSE-ORIENTED organizations on Monday filed a petition before the Supreme Court (SC) questioning the constitutionality of the 2025 General Appropriations Act (GAA), citing the misallocation of funds that undermined the constitutional mandate to prioritize education.
In its petition for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for a temporary restraining order, The Teachers’ Dignity Coalition (TDC), Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC), and Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA) argued that the 2025 budget violated Section 5(5), Article 14 of the 1987 Constitution, which mandates that education be prioritized in government appropriations.
The groups cited the disproportionate allocation of P1.05 trillion to the Department of Public Works and Highways, which significantly surpassed the combined P913.3-billion budget of the Department of Education, Commission on Higher Education, Technical Education and Skills Development Authority, and state universities and colleges.
The petitioners also criticized the government’s reclassification of funds, which they claimed artificially inflated the budget of the education sector.
They argued that non-traditional education-related allocations from various agencies had been aggregated to create the illusion that the education sector received the highest budgetary share.
These agencies included the Philippine Military Academy and the National Defense College of the Philippines under the Department of National Defense; the Philippine National Police Academy; the Philippine Public Safety College and Local Government Academy under the Department of the Interior and Local Government; and the Philippine Science High School System and Science Education Institute under the Department of Science and Technology.
According to the petitioners, this aggregation created a misleading P50-billion lead over the DPWH budget, which they claimed distorted the true allocation intended for basic and higher education.
They also alleged President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr., the Senate, and the House of Representatives have acted with a grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction for signing and passing the 2025 GAA.
The plaintiffs also asked the SC to direct Mr. Marcos to desist from enforcing or implementing the 2025 GAA.
They asked the high tribunal to stop the respondents from using public funds for the enforcement and implementation of the same law.
Other named respondents were Executive Secretary Lucas P. Bersamin and both chambers of Congress.
The 2025 GAA has sparked controversy due to concerns over its alleged misallocation of funds and potential violations of constitutional mandates.
An earlier lawsuit on the 2025 budget has been filed by former Executive Secretary Victor D. Rodriguez and others, arguing that the 2025 GAA violated several constitutional provisions, including issues related to blank items in the bicameral conference committee report and the prioritization of budget allocations.
Another lawsuit was filed by Anthony C. Leachon, a health reform advocate and former special adviser on non-communicable diseases at the Department of Health.
The crux of his petition centered on the zero allocation of government subsidy for the Philippine Health Insurance Corp. in the 2025 national budget. — Chloe Mari A. Hufana
