geLAW #2027BarCoach

The Supreme Court declared as unconstitutional, first, the 2024 General Appropriations Act because of Congress’s increase of the unprogrammed appropriations by PHP 449.5 billion, which resulted in an increase in the president’s total recommended appropriations, second, Special Provisions 1(a) and (b), Chapter XLIII of the 2026 General Appropriations Act, and third, the 2025 General Appropriations Act because of Congress’s increase of the Special Road Fund by PHP 17.99 billion, which also resulted in an increase in the president’s total recommended appropriations. In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the Supreme Court En Banc, granted the petition of Edcel C. Lagman et al. (G.R. No. 271059) and partly granted the petition of Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III et al. (G.R. No. 271347) challenging the increase in unprogrammed appropriations made by Congress in the 2024 General Appropriations Act (GAA). It declared unconstitutional Republic Act No. 11975 or the 2024 GAA because the total appropriations were effectively increased by PHP 449.5 billion. The SC also granted the petition by Filipinos for Peace, Justice and Progress Movement, Inc. et al. (G.R. No. E-02472). It declared unconstitutional Republic Act No. 12116 or the 2025 GAA because of the PHP 17.99-billion increase to the DPWH Special Road Fund made by Congress, which resultantly increased the president’s total recommended appropriations. As regards the PHP 12.75-billion increase to certain agencies’ Special Accounts in the General Fund (SAGF), these were found to have violated Book VI, Chapter 4, Section 25 of the Administrative Code, which prohibits increasing amounts in special provisions beyond those proposed by the president. The SC partly granted Edgar R. Erice and Leila M. De Lima’s petition (G.R. No. E-04036) challenging the constitutionality of Chapter XLIII of the 2026 GAA, which authorizes unprogrammed appropriations. The Supreme Court ruled that Unprogrammed Appropriations are not unconstitutional per se. However, this budgetary item needs clear limits and safeguards to preserve fiscal discipline, transparency, and accountability. They become constitutionally infirm when they lack sufficient standards, effectively granting the Executive unchecked spending authority that weakens fiscal discipline and undermines funding for programmed projects when estimated government revenues are not realized. The Court further ruled that the budgetary ceiling imposed under Article VI, Sec. 25(1) of the Constitution applies to the total of programmed and unprogrammed appropriations. The Court thus emphasized that to be constitutional, unprogrammed appropriations must comply with the following conditions: a. In no case shall there be lump sums in Unprogrammed Appropriations. b. As part of Congress’s legislative oversight, and given the distinction between spending for the deficit and spending through unprogrammed appropriations, the conditions for the use of new income, as well as additional earnings of the Government from non-tax revenue sources, should be clearly differentiated between programmed and unprogrammed expenditures, with Congress presumptively using these new funds for programmed expenditures, except when there are clear and convincing reasons, such as foreign assisted projects, for including them under Unprogrammed Appropriations. c. Congress should prescribe sufficient standards in terms of prioritization for spending when there is more than one purpose under the Unprogrammed Appropriations. d. The provision for Unprogrammed Appropriations should be within the national fiscal program established in the Budget and consistent with its nature as a narrow contingent appropriation. The SC permanently prohibited the Senate, House of Representatives, Office of the Executive Secretary, and the Department of Budget and Management Acting Secretary from implementing Special Provision 1(a) and (b), Chapter XLIII of the 2026 GAA. As to the 2024 and 2025 GAA, the SC held that the doctrine of operative fact applies. However, the doctrine covers only irreversible programs whose beneficiaries acted in good faith. It does not shield authors, proponents, or implementors from criminal, civil, or administrative liability unless the proper tribunals explicitly find that they acted in good faith. Read the full text of the Press Release at: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17546…. Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-a….

The Judicial and Bar Council, through the Supreme Court, names five candidates vying to become the next chief justice. The next top magistrate will replace Alexander Gesmundo, who is set to retire on November 6. Link to the full story in the comments section.

The #SupremeCourtPH 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤, during its session on August 26, 2026, unanimously declared that Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution requires Congress to enact a law prohibiting political dynasties, holding that Congress’ failure to do so for 39 years constitutes grave abuse of discretion. The Court directed Congress to comply with its mandatory constitutional duty to enact an anti-political dynasty law at the earliest opportunity, define political dynasties, and determine the scope of the prohibition. In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the Court 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 granted the consolidated petitions in G.R. Nos. 263934, 272370, and 279201 for certiorari and mandamus. The petitions challenged Congress’ prolonged failure to pass a law defining and prohibiting political dynasties. The Court strongly urged Congress to heed its constitutional duty with utmost urgency, as it declared that the latter has “the MANDATORY CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY to enact the law on the constitutional prohibition against political dynasties as expressly provided for in Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution.” It stated that the Congress “MUST HENCEFORTH AND WITH UTMOST URGENCY ENACT THE APPROPRIATE ANTI-POLITICAL DYNASTY LAW AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY.” Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution provides that “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.” The Court held that this provision is not merely an aspiration but a constitutional command. The use of the word “shall” makes clear that the State has a mandatory duty both to guarantee equal access to public service and to prohibit political dynasties. The Court also held that the phrase “as may be defined by law” does not give Congress the choice whether to prohibit political dynasties. Rather, it gives Congress the authority to define what constitutes a political dynasty and determine the scope of the prohibition. The Court further said that Congress’ prolonged failure to enact an anti-political dynasty law constitutes grave abuse of discretion. The Court took judicial notice of the numerous anti-political dynasty bills filed but left unacted upon since the ratification of the 1987 Constitution. It also considered studies on the prevalence of political dynasties and their relationship with socioeconomic conditions in the country. The Court noted that political dynasties have remained widespread and have extended even into the party-list system. Despite changes in the composition of Congress over the years, no comprehensive anti-political dynasty law has been enacted, implying either a lack of interest, avoidance for convenience, or service of self-interest. Although the Constitution does not set a deadline for Congress to enact the law, the Court held that this does not allow Congress to postpone its constitutional duty indefinitely. The Court found that 39 years is beyond a reasonable period to carry out the constitutional command. Congress’ continued inaction therefore constitutes a continuing violation of its constitutional duty. Read the full text of the Press Briefer at: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17324…. Read the full text of the Decision at: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17319…. Read Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen’s Concurring Opinion at: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17319…. Read Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting Concurring Opinion at: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17320…. Read Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda’s Separate Opinion at: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17320…. Read Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao’s Separate Concurring Opinion at: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17321…. Read Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh’s Separate Opinion at: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17322… Read Associate Justice Raul B. Villanueva’s Separate Concurring Opinion at: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17323…. Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-a….

The Office of the 2027 Bar Chairperson, Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, has issued 𝐁𝐚𝐫 𝐁𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐧 𝐍𝐨. 𝟏-𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟕 dated September 16, 2026, concerning the “𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟕 𝐁𝐚𝐫 𝐄𝐱𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬: 𝐌𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐒𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐥𝐞, 𝐂𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐲𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐮𝐬.” Full text of Bar Bulletin 1-2027, including the 2027 Bar Syllabus: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-conte… Bar 2027 Microsite: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/bar-2027 Official Viber Channel: bit.ly/2027BarExamsOfficialV… #BaRRR2027 #Bar2027 #SupremeCourtPH

The #SupremeCourtPH (SC) has found a bar review coach guilty of indirect contempt for spreading false information about the 2023 Bar Examinations on Facebook after stating that the said exams would be checked by means of artificial intelligence (AI). In a 𝘗𝘦𝘳 𝘊𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘮 Decision, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 found Edgar S. Dizon, administrator of the Facebook group Bar Law for Dummies, liable for indirect contempt. The Court fined him PHP 30,000 and ordered the removal of his name from the list of 2016 Bar passers. On September 21, 2023, a post from the Facebook group and the account 𝘛𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘬𝘦𝘯𝘶 𝘋𝘪𝘻𝘰𝘯 claimed that the 2023 Bar Examinations would be “𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘥, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 (𝘈𝘐).” It also stated: “𝘈𝘓𝘞𝘈𝘠𝘚 𝘚𝘛𝘈𝘙𝘛 𝘞𝘐𝘛𝘏 𝘠𝘌𝘚 𝘰𝘳 𝘕𝘖. 𝘠𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘶𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘢𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘱𝘪𝘯 𝘯𝘨 𝘈𝘐 𝘊𝘩𝘦𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘴.” As a result, the Office of the 2023 Bar Chair (BCO), headed by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, had to investigate the source of the post and determine its impact on the examinations. It also issued an advisory clarifying that the examinations would be checked by four human examiners for each subject, all of whom are experts in their respective fields. But instead of removing the post, Dizon threatened to sue the Court and demanded a public apology “within 24 hours”, in a media interview. He also sent several emails to the SC’s Judiciary Public Assistance Section, claiming that the advisory had a chilling effect on him. He denied spreading misinformation and asked the Court to issue a statement correcting the advisory. After being directed by the SC to explain why he should not be cited for indirect contempt for interfering with the conduct of the 2023 Bar Examinations, Dizon admitted owning the Facebook account but denied claiming that AI would check the examinations, arguing that he used the words “TO HELP” in his post. The SC was not convinced and held him liable under Rule 71, Section 3 of the 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵, which punishes unlawful interference with court processes outside a courtroom, conduct that degrades the courts or undermines public confidence in the administration of justice, and unauthorized practice of law, as indirect contempt. The SC held that Dizon’s post unlawfully interfered with the conduct of the 2023 Bar Examinations and undermined the integrity of both the exams and the SC, which exercises supervision over the legal profession. It caused confusion and alarm, forcing bar officials to divert their limited time and resources to tracing the source of the post, coordinating with government agencies, issuing clarifications, and responding to numerous inquiries. The SC further noted Dizon’s lack of remorse. Instead of acknowledging the harm caused by his post, he demanded an apology from the Court, threatened legal action, refused to take down the post, and sought a statement retracting the advisory. The Court likewise warned Dizon from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law when he conducted bar review coaching sessions and authored several bar review materials used in the 𝘉𝘢𝘳 𝘓𝘢𝘸 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘋𝘶𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘦𝘴 training program. Dizon acknowledged that while he had passed the 2016 Bar Examinations, he had not taken the lawyer’s oath, which is one of the requirements to practice law, because of pending criminal cases. In his Separate Concurring Opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen agreed that Dizon must be punished for undermining the integrity of the Bar examinations. However, he also emphasized the need to balance the Court’s power to punish for contempt with the constitutional right to free speech, including legitimate criticism of the courts. Read the full text of the press release at sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17295… Read the full text of the Decision at sc.judiciary.gov.ph/4734-in-… Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at sc.judiciary.gov.ph/4734-sep… Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-a…