MANILA — The House of Representatives has rejected a bid to reopen its approved 2027 national budget proposal despite warnings that some provisions may violate the Constitution following a Supreme Court ruling striking down questionable allocations in previous national budgets.
During Tuesday’s plenary session, lawmakers voted down a motion by BH party-list’s Cong. Robert Nazal to reconsider the House General Appropriations Bill (HGAB), leaving unresolved constitutional concerns for possible action by the Senate and the bicameral conference committee.
The motion was defeated through a voice vote after Las Piñas City’s Cong. Mark Anthony Santos opposed it, prompting Deputy Speaker Yevgeny Emano to declare its rejection.
Nazal argued that the proposed 2027 budget contained provisions similar to those invalidated by the Supreme Court in the 2026 national budget.
He noted that the House approved the spending measure on final reading on October 12, before the high court issued its ruling covering provisions in the 2024, 2025 and 2026 General Appropriations Acts.
ACT Teachers party-list’s Cong. Antonio Tinio criticized the rejection, saying lawmakers squandered an opportunity to address potential constitutional violations, questionable lump-sum allocations and the possible misuse of unprogrammed appropriations.
“‘Yan ang pagkakataong pinalampas… ng House of Representatives at ipinauubaya nalang sa Senado at sa bicam kung sakali,” Tinio said.
Nazal specifically sought a review of Special Provisions 1A and 1B, which he said resembled provisions struck down by the Supreme Court.
He also questioned the proposed P57-billion restoration of the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corp. fund and the conversion of P8.8 billion in national government advances into subsidies for government-owned and controlled corporations.
The lawmaker called for closer scrutiny of budget amendments and realignments to ensure they were technically justified, ready for implementation and responsive to actual development needs.
He likewise pushed for greater transparency in budget adjustments and the disclosure of records from review subcommittees.
Despite the House’s refusal to reconsider the measure, Nazal urged chamber leaders to formally transmit his proposed amendments and constitutional objections to the Senate.
“While the House has declined to reconsider the bill, I respectfully request that these specific conditions, constitutional concerns, and proposed amendments be formally transmitted to the Senate for consideration and where proper, addressed in the bicameral conference process,” he said.
Nazal also expressed willingness to join the House contingent in the bicameral conference committee if selected.
Earlier, Deputy Speaker Ronaldo Puno maintained that recalling the budget bill was unnecessary because the Senate and the bicameral conference committee could still introduce amendments.
With the House standing by its approved version, responsibility for addressing the disputed provisions now shifts to the remaining stages of congressional budget deliberations./PN
