President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. claimed on Thursday that the petition challenging the constitutionality of the 2025 General Appropriations Act (GAA) before the Supreme Court (SC) is part of what he described as efforts to destabilize the government.
In an interview with the media, Marcos admitted that no contingency plan is in place if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the petition.
"No, we shut down everything. I guess that’s what they want, they want the government to cease working so ‘yung matuloy yung kanilang mga destabilization na ginagawa," Marcos stated in response to a question about whether the government has a contingency plan if the 2025 national budget is ruled unconstitutional.
The President said he does not understand why the petitioners—Davao City 3rd District Representative Isidro Ungab, former Executive Secretary Vic Rodriguez, and other former government officials—filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions in the 2025 national budget.
Marcos further stated that Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra, representing the Philippine government, will be responsible for responding to and arguing against the petition.
He also added that the Solicitor General informed him the government is on "solid footing" regarding the constitutionality of the matter.
"I’ve read some of the complaint. The SolGen, of course, will be the one to argue for the government and he tells me, SolGen Meynard tells me that we are on a solid footing in terms of constitutionality,” Marcos said.
The petitioners argued that the so-called "blank items" in the bicameral conference committee report for the 2025 national budget compromise transparency and accountability in the budget process.
Previously, former President Rodrigo Duterte and Rep. Ungab raised concerns over alleged blanks and discrepancies in the bicam report tied to the enacted 2025 GAA.
Former President Duterte stated that the 2025 GAA should not be regarded as valid legislation due to the alleged discrepancies.
Moreover, Malacañang emphasized that the Office of the President (OP) will not be held responsible if any legal challenges arise regarding the alleged blank items in the bicameral conference committee report.
