MANILA, Philippines – Various organizations and individuals submitted a petition yesterday to the Supreme Court (SC), challenging the constitutionality of the 2025 national budget. One key reason cited was the funding allocated to the Ayuda para sa Kapos ang Kita Program (AKAP). They argued this provision effectively amounts to pork barrel spending.

In their petition for certiorari, 1Sambayan, Sanlakas, and the individual filers pointed out that despite not being part of the National Expenditure Program, AKAP was allocated ₱26.159 billion. This occurred even after it had been removed from the Senate’s proposed budget bill.

They similarly requested the Supreme Court to rule the sections of the 2025 General Appropriations Act (GAA) as unconstitutional. These sections allocated a reduced funding level for the educational department along with no financial support for the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation.

Included among the petitioners are Sambayan spokesperson and ex-Supreme Court senior associate judge Antonio Carpio, Sanlakas member Marie Marguerite Lopez, Advocates for National Interest representatives, previous ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales, Cielo Magno, Dante Gatmaytan, and Maria Dominga Padilla.

The respondents include the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Office of the Executive Secretary, the Department of Budget and Management, the Department of Finance, and the Department of Public Works and Highways.

The petitioners are requesting a temporary restraining order, a writ of preliminary injunction, and additional injunctive measures to prevent the national government from enforcing parts of the GAA related to AKAP.

The petition pointed out that once the AKAP fund allocation was restored by the bicameral conference committee, Senate Finance Committee head Senator Grace Poe acknowledged that both members of Congress and senators would be involved in the initiative. She also disclosed that their respective shares would amount to approximately PHP 21 billion for legislators and PHP 5 billion for senators.

These claims were supported by officials from the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), who openly acknowledged that members of Congress and Senators may be involved in the execution of AKAP by pinpointing, recommending, and directing potential recipients.

“As stated above, AKAP, being formulated within the 2025 GAA, bears the hallmarks of congressional pork barrel,” the petition asserted.

Referencing Belgica vs. Ochoa, the petitioners stated that the Supreme Court characterized pork barrel as a type of lump-sum, discretionary fund allowing lawmakers to manage how the money is used.

They highlighted that legislators play a role in executing AKAP by pinpointing, approving, and directing particular individuals who qualify as beneficiaries due to their income falling below the legal minimum wage threshold and experiencing severe impacts from escalating inflation.

It was mentioned that despite the national government’s commitment to develop guidelines for the conditional enforcement of AKAP, including additional protections to guarantee the effective utilization of public resources, the lack of these safeguards in the GAA 2025 equates to Congress essentially delegating to the Executive and Judicial branches the responsibility of enacting legislation prohibiting the unconstitutional misappropriation of funds.

The Comelec has exempted the dissemination of AKAP and various other assistance initiatives from the prohibition during elections. However, the rules emphasize that aspirants are not allowed to pinpoint who will receive this help nor participate in handing out these resources.