Marcos’ Budgetary Bonanza: Unprogrammed Appropriations Spit in the Constitution’s Face

Flood Control or Fund Control? Marcos’ ₱807B Disappearing Act

By Louis “Barok” C. Biraogo — October 2, 2025

STEP right up to the greatest show in Malacañang, where President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. is tossing ₱214.4 billion in unprogrammed appropriations like a political piñata at a patronage party. Representative Antonio Tinio, the Makabayan coalition’s resident muckraker, has ripped the veil off this fiscal circus, exposing nearly 4,000 infrastructure projects personally approved by Marcos, funded by a shadow budget that laughs at congressional oversight. Is this a constitutional crime, a transparency trainwreck, or just another day in Philippine politics? Spoiler: it’s a triple threat, served with a heaping side of ethical decay. Let’s dissect this mess with a legal scalpel and a smirk.

Constitutional Circus Act: Power of the Purse? More Like Power of the Palace

The 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article VI, Section 29(1), is clearer than a Manila sunrise: “No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.” This is Congress’ sacred power of the purse, designed to keep public funds from becoming a politician’s personal piggy bank. Yet Marcos, with the swagger of a budget wizard, has conjured ₱61.4 billion for 1,889 projects in 2023 and a staggering ₱153 billion for 1,811 projects in 2024 from unprogrammed appropriations, all outside the General Appropriations Act (GAA)’s line-item scrutiny. It’s like he’s running a secret infrastructure budget, invisible until Tinio flipped on the floodlights.

Enter Belgica v. Ochoa (G.R. No. 208566, 2013), where the Supreme Court obliterated the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) for being a lump-sum abomination that let legislators play budget czar post-enactment, violating separation of powers. While Belgica targeted legislative pork, its principles—lump-sum funds must be transparent, defined, and not usurp Congress’ role—apply to executive lump sums like unprogrammed appropriations. Marcos’ fiscal free-for-all (₱807 billion in 2023, ₱731 billion in 2024, and a projected ₱363 billion in 2025) is a masterclass in opacity, with no line items or public list. It’s a fiscal black hole that would make Belgica choke on its own precedent.

Then there’s Araullo v. Aquino (G.R. No. 209287, 2014), which gutted the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) for letting the Executive realign savings without congressional approval, another violation of the power of the purse. Marcos’ unprogrammed appropriations, though technically in the GAA, mirror DAP’s sin: massive, opaque disbursements that sidestep Congress’ itemized control. Executive Order No. 292, Section 35, Book VI, requires a “special budget to be approved by the President” for lump-sum expenditures, but when Marcos personally greenlights thousands of projects, it’s not execution—it’s legislation by executive fiat. Belgica and Araullo together roar: lump sums aren’t a blank check to play Congress. This is constitutional contempt, served with a side of audacity.

Legal and Ethical Bloodbath: Defenses So Fragile They’d Shatter in a Breeze

Malacañang’s spin doctors are probably scrambling, but let’s torch their excuses before they’re even printed. First, they’ll claim unprogrammed funds are “legally authorized” by the GAA. Sure, Congress tucks unprogrammed appropriations into the GAA for emergencies or excess revenue, per Department of Budget and Management (DBM) rules, but ₱807 billion in one year? That’s not a contingency; it’s a shadow treasury. The GAA’s unprogrammed funds are meant for specific triggers, not a slush fund for Marcos’ pet projects. Belgica demanded transparency; Araullo demanded fidelity to Congress. These billions, with no itemized list, spit in both their faces.

Next, the “delegation” dodge: “Oh, the President doesn’t really approve every project; it’s just delegated to the DBM or Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).” Adorable, but EO 292 explicitly requires presidential approval for special budgets. If Marcos is signing off on 4,000 projects, he’s not delegating—he’s curating patronage like a political sommelier. Show us the delegation orders, the logs, the special budgets. Oh, wait—are they buried under a pile of flood-control contracts that don’t stop floods?

Ethically, this is a five-alarm dumpster fire. Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, nails officials for giving unwarranted benefits or causing undue injury. Republic Act No. 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, mandates transparency. Billions flowing to thousands of projects with no public list, no bidding details, and no Commission on Audit (COA) scrutiny? That’s not just graft bait—it’s a smorgasbord. This opacity screams conflicts of interest, kickbacks, and ghost projects. If Marcos’ cronies are cashing in, RA 3019 is knocking. If the Palace is hiding records, RA 6713 is writing the citation.

Guilty Until You Go Full Snowden: Transparency or Bust, Mr. President

Marcos, you’ve got one shot to dodge the corruption stench: go full WikiLeaks. Release every special budget, delegation order, procurement document, and a raw COA audit—yesterday. Post it all on a public, searchable DBM portal, not some dusty Malacañang archive. If you’re clean, this is a layup. But if you’re hiding behind “executive privilege” or “budget complexities,” you’re just fanning the suspicion flames.

History’s not kind to cover-ups. The Pork Barrel Scam post-Belgica saw “probes” fizzle while evidence vanished. The Pharmally scandal turned billions in COVID funds into a bureaucratic black hole. Internal investigations without public disclosure are just performance art. Marcos needs to publish the full ledger—project names, locations, contractors, costs, completion statuses—and let the COA do a forensic audit, unfiltered. Anything less, and the corruption cloud sticks like Manila traffic.

Cataclysm and Cleanup: A Political Implosion and a Roadmap to Redemption

This isn’t just a legal scandal; it’s a political Armageddon. Public trust is crumbling faster than a DPWH road in a monsoon. Marcos’ allies are wobbling, the opposition is sharpening its pitchforks, and Congress might finally remember it has oversight powers. This smells like the PDAF scandal’s shadier cousin, and it could torch Marcos’ political capital faster than you can say “infrastructure budget.” Legally, expect a Supreme Court petition to halt these releases, a COA audit that could disallow billions, and RA 3019 graft complaints if the trail leads to cronies. The Office of the Ombudsman is probably warming up its subpoena machine.

Here’s the cleanup plan, and don’t hold your breath:

Spill Every Secret: Publish all project lists, special budgets, procurement docs, and contractor details on a public database. Transparency is your only alibi.
Slam the Brakes: Freeze all unprogrammed releases until the COA completes a forensic audit. No more sneaking funds while the nation’s distracted.
Congress, Grow a Backbone: Amend the GAA to ban opaque lump-sum items. Pass a law mandating real-time disclosure of unprogrammed funds. You’re the power of the purse—act like it.

Until then, this is a masterclass in constitutional defiance, ethical collapse, and fiscal sleight-of-hand. Marcos can claim “no involvement” until the carabaos come home, but approving ₱214.4 billion in shadow projects isn’t innocence—it’s a punchline. Pambihira, talaga.

**Fate of Pork: Legislative vs. Presidential Post-Belgica and *Araullo***

Fund Type	Legislative Pork (PDAF)	Presidential Lump Sums (e.g., Unprogrammed Appropriations, DAP)
Ruling	Belgica v. Ochoa (2013)	Araullo v. Aquino (2014)
Status	Struck down as unconstitutional	DAP partially struck down; other executive funds vulnerable
Why?	Violated separation of powers by allowing legislators to control post-enactment project selection, undermining Executive’s implementation role.	DAP unconstitutional for realigning savings without congressional approval; other lump sums must have clear purpose and safeguards to avoid bypassing Congress.
Key Issue	Lack of transparency, itemization, and legislative overreach into execution.	Usurpation of Congress’ appropriation power; lack of clear statutory basis for realignments.
Current State	Dead. PDAF-style funds no longer exist in the GAA.	Alive but on shaky ground. Must be transparent, tied to GAA triggers, and not undermine Congress’ power.
Relevance to Marcos’ Case	Sets transparency and non-usurpation standards; unprogrammed appropriations’ opacity risks Belgica-style invalidation.	Limits executive discretion; Marcos’ massive, opaque releases echo DAP’s overreach, inviting constitutional challenge.