Calling it ‘political’ does not make the Constitution disappear

With the Supreme Court’s oral arguments on the constitutionality of unprogrammed appropriations now winding down, a defining question remains:

What happens when a constitutional issue is labeled “political”?

Does it cease to be a constitutional question?

Or does the Constitution continue to impose limits — whether or not they are convenient to enforce?

The Solicitor General’s position, presented with clarity and discipline, is that the issues raised in the petitions belong to the political branches: to Congress, to the Executive, and ultimately to the electorate.

It is a position that calls for restraint. It warns against judicial overreach. It invokes separation of powers.

But calling an issue “political” does not make the Constitution disappear.

THESE ARE NOT SUGGESTIONS
The Constitution does not merely allocate powers. It imposes limits. Among them:

• A financed fiscal program — expenditures must match real sources of financing.

• A budget ceiling — Congress cannot expand total appropriations beyond the President’s recommendation.

• And the rule that public funds may be spent only as appropriated by law — a power solely vested in Congress.

These are not policy preferences. They are constitutional commands.

And when such commands are implicated, the issue is not political. It is legal.

WHAT COURTS ARE FOR
Courts do not decide whether budgets are wise. They do not choose between roads and hospitals.

But they do decide whether the rules of the Constitution are followed.

That is the question before the Court.

WHERE POWER ACTUALLY MOVES
Labels do not resolve constitutional questions — operation does.

In a system defined by deficits, new revenues rarely cover all authorized spending.

Someone must decide:

• Which appropriations are funded.

• Which are not.

• And in what amounts.

If those decisions occur during execution, then allocation no longer happens solely in Congress.

It shifts — inevitably — to the Executive. That is not implementation. That is power moving.

NOT POLITICAL — CONSTITUTIONAL
The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse. That includes deciding what gets funded and how much.

If that decision is deferred or diluted, the issue becomes constitutional — not political.

Elections, oversight, and public debate are important. But they are not substitutes for constitutional compliance. The ballot cannot answer whether a fiscal structure violates the Constitution.

Only the Court can.

PRACTICE IS NOT PERMISSION
That unprogrammed appropriations have existed for decades does not settle the issue.

Practice cannot override the Constitution.

Even precedent does not foreclose review. In Araullo v. Aquino III, the Court examined how funds were used — not just how they were authorized. In Belgica v. Executive Secretary, it upheld the concept of unprogrammed funds — but within constitutional limits.

The question now is whether those limits still hold — in practice.

THE QUESTION THAT REMAINS
Are the Constitution’s safeguards over public spending real — or merely formal?

If they are real, they must be enforceable.

If enforceable, they must be justiciable.

To call them “political” is to suggest they may be acknowledged in principle, yet set aside in practice.

That cannot be the Constitution we are sworn to uphold.

Because in the end, the Constitution is not a suggestion — and it does not disappear simply because it is called “political.”

Florencio B. Abad was formerly chairman of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and secretary of the Department of Budget and Management. Currently, he is professor of Praxis at the Ateneo School of Government and senior professional lecturer at the De La Salle Tañada-Diokno School of Law.