Try
The Supreme Court’s latest ruling on Unprogrammed Appropriations is an important step toward restoring discipline and accountability in the national budget. It does not abolish UA. But it makes clear that this budgetary device cannot be used to circumvent constitutional limits or give the Executive virtually unrestricted discretion over public spending.
Before the Philippines’ credit outlook was revised, BSP Governor Eli M. Remolona Jr. had already issued a quiet but telling warning. Monetary policy, he said, had largely “reached the limits of its effectiveness” in supporting growth. What comes next would depend on fiscal action and governance. That warning now finds an echo in the decision of Fitch Ratings to revise the Philippines’ outlook from “Stable” to “Negative,” while affirming its “BBB” investment-grade rating.
Defunding foreign-assisted projects did not save money. It wasted it. It froze infrastructure, raised costs, slowed growth, weakened investor confidence, and shifted the burden onto those with the least protection.
The debt is no longer just growing. It is quietly eating the budget—and with it, our room to choose our future. And that is precisely why the Supreme Court’s pending rulings on the legality of recent budget practices matter—not only for constitutional order, but for the country’s long-term fiscal survival.
The Supreme Court must act decisively—to restore fiscal discipline, transparency, and accountability, and to uphold the integrity of the budget process. At stake is not merely a budgetary device, but the Constitution’s clear command on who controls the nation’s purse—and in whose name public money is spent.
