MOST FILIPINOS glaze over when talk turns to the national budget. Numbers in the trillions have a way of sounding distant from the daily concerns of Juan and Maria. But a recent Supreme Court ruling has brought the budget process into the spotlight, raising a simple but important question: Who gets to decide how our tax money is spent?
Last week, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional key portions of the 2024 and 2025 national budgets and struck down certain provisions of the 2026 budget. The Court ruled that Congress cannot increase the President’s total recommended appropriations when it passes the annual General Appropriations Act.
To many, this sounds like a technical dispute among lawyers, legislators, and budget officials. It is not. Every peso in the national budget comes from taxpayers. Whether through income taxes, VAT, fuel taxes, fees, or government borrowing that future generations must repay, the money being allocated belongs to the Filipino people. That is why the dispute matters.
The Executive Branch prepares the National Expenditure Program. It identifies priorities, forecasts revenues, and determines how much the government can afford to spend. Congress then reviews the proposal and decides where the money should go.
The Supreme Court has now reminded everyone that while Congress may adjust allocations, it cannot enlarge the overall spending envelope proposed by the President.
Think of it this way. A family decides that it can afford to spend P30,000 this month. The parents may debate whether more should go to education, groceries, repairs, or medical needs. But they cannot suddenly decide to spend P50,000 if the family’s income only supports P30,000. The Supreme Court is essentially applying the same principle to government finances.
Supporters of the ruling say it protects fiscal discipline and prevents excessive spending. They argue that constitutional limits exist for a reason and that government must live within its means. Critics, including some officials in the Executive Branch, contend that the decision could make government budgeting less flexible. They worry that restrictions on so-called “unprogrammed appropriations” may limit the government’s ability to respond quickly to emerging needs and opportunities. The administration has already sought reconsideration of the ruling.
Reasonable people can disagree on the legal arguments. But there is one lesson that should unite us. The budget is more than an accounting document. It is a moral document. A budget reveals what a nation values. It determines whether classrooms are built, roads repaired, hospitals equipped, farmers assisted, and communities protected from floods.
For too long, budget discussions have been treated as a private conversation among experts. Yet ordinary Filipinos have the greatest stake in the outcome. When a project is delayed, it is Juan and Maria who wait. When public funds are wasted, it is Juan and Maria who pay. When spending is prudent and effective, it is Juan and Maria who benefit.
The Supreme Court ruling is ultimately not about lawyers winning arguments or politicians winning battles. It is about strengthening the safeguards that govern the people’s money. At a time when Filipinos continue to struggle with high prices, rising living costs, and economic uncertainty, every peso matters.
That is why the question before us is not merely constitutional. It is deeply personal. After all, the money being debated in court and in Congress is not government money. It is the people’s money. And the people deserve nothing less than transparency, discipline, and accountability in how it is spent./PN
