Supreme Court Rejects Impeachment Grounds Against Marcos Over 2024 Budget

In a unanimous decision, the Philippine Supreme Court has ruled that Special Provision 1(d) of the 2024 General Appropriations Act (GAA) is unconstitutional, ordering the return of P60 billion in PhilHealth funds previously transferred to the National Treasury. Contrary to misleading claims circulating online, however, the Court did not declare the entire 2024 national budget unconstitutional nor establish grounds for President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s impeachment.

The High Court’s ruling specifically targeted the provision authorizing the return of excess reserve funds from government-owned or controlled corporations to the National Treasury. The decision permanently bars the transfer of the remaining P29.9 billion in PhilHealth fund balances that had been earmarked for redirection to government coffers.

The case originated from petitions filed by public health advocates seeking to block the Department of Finance’s order to transfer P89.9 billion in “excess” PhilHealth funds to the national treasury. Associate Justice Amy Lazaro Javier penned the majority decision.

Significantly, the Supreme Court upheld President Marcos’s certification of the 2024 GAA as urgent, finding that he had acted within his constitutional authority. The Court determined the President did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the certification.

Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, however, issued a separate opinion that diverged sharply from the majority view. Leonen contended that Marcos had indeed committed “grave abuse of discretion” by certifying the 2024 budget bill as urgent, arguing that “no public calamity or emergency existed at that time” to warrant such action. In his opinion, Leonen suggested the entire 2024 GAA should be considered unconstitutional.

This distinction between the Court’s official ruling and Leonen’s individual opinion has become the source of misinformation online. A YouTube video with over 22,000 views falsely presented Leonen’s separate opinion as the Supreme Court’s official position, incorrectly claiming that the Court had ruled against Marcos and established grounds for impeachment proceedings.

The video’s thumbnail featured images of officials with bold red text reading “Ground for impeachment” alongside text claiming “Supreme Court hinatulan na si BBM! Unconstitutional ang 2024 GAA! Ground for impeachment na! Lagot!” (The Supreme Court has ruled against BBM! The 2024 GAA is unconstitutional! This already constitutes grounds for impeachment! He’s in trouble!)

It’s worth noting that Justice Leonen himself never explicitly stated that Marcos’s certification constitutes grounds for impeachment, contrary to what the misleading video suggests.

President Marcos has faced persistent rumors about potential impeachment, particularly following investigations into controversial flood control projects and budget insertions revealed by former lawmaker Zaldy Co, who implicated Marcos in these matters. However, no formal impeachment complaint against the President has gained traction in Congress, and Marcos has dismissed suggestions that he might resign.

The Supreme Court’s actual ruling represents a significant development for PhilHealth and government fiscal management but falls far short of the constitutional crisis that some online sources have attempted to portray. The distinction between the Court’s official position and individual justices’ opinions highlights the importance of verifying information from authoritative sources rather than relying on sensationalized social media content.