THE Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) has urged the Supreme Court to dismiss a petition challenging the validity of the General Appropriations Act (GAA) of 2025, arguing that the law was enacted in full compliance with constitutional requirements.

In its official comment submitted to the court, the OSG maintained that the national budget was lawfully passed and should not be invalidated.

At the heart of the OSG's defense is the assertion that Congress has broad authority over budgetary matters as granted by the 1987 Constitution.

It underscored that the power of the purse lies solely with the legislature, provided that appropriations laws follow proper procedures.

According to the OSG, the GAA 2025 underwent all necessary legislative processes, including bicameral deliberations and presidential approval, ensuring its legitimacy.

The government's chief legal counsel also invoked the principle of separation of powers, cautioning that the judiciary must exercise restraint in reviewing budgetary decisions. It argued that unless there is a clear constitutional violation, the Supreme Court should defer to the judgment of the political branches, particularly in matters of fiscal policy and governance.

In response to allegations that the budget law violates transparency and accountability standards, the OSG insisted that the GAA 2025 was crafted through rigorous congressional scrutiny, public hearings, and executive oversight.

It refuted claims that certain appropriations violate constitutional safeguards, emphasizing that all allocations are intended for legitimate government programs.

A significant aspect of the petition, filed by former executive secretary Victor Rodriguez and Davao City 3rd District Rep. Isidro Ungab, involved objections to lump-sum appropriations and discretionary funds, with petitioners claiming that these enable unconstitutional pork barrel practices.

The OSG, however, countered that the contested budget items are properly itemized and legally justified. It maintains that administrative discretion in fund utilization remains within constitutional limits, provided that budget realignments do not encroach on Congress' exclusive appropriation powers.

Beyond the legal arguments, the OSG warned of the broader public interest implications of the case. Striking down the GAA 2025, it argued, could lead to fiscal paralysis, delays in government projects, and economic instability. It contended that an adverse ruling would disrupt essential services, including infrastructure, health care, and education, ultimately harming millions of Filipinos.

In challenging the constitutionality of the 2025 GAA, Rodriguez and Ungab argued that it violates principles of transparency, accountability, and constitutional safeguards. They specifically questioned lump-sum appropriations and discretionary funds, claiming these mechanisms enable pork barrel practices.

The petitioners further contended that the 2025 budget undermines health care by allegedly defunding PhilHealth, despite the Universal Health Care Act mandating subsidies for low-income and unemployed individuals.