The president’s threat to shut down the government if the Supreme Court rules against the 2025 General Appropriations Act is quite alarming. Such a response is not only inappropriate but also a dangerous precedent that undermines constitutional checks and balances. A leader entrusted with public funds and the machinery of governance must be prepared to defend the integrity of the budget, not resort to ultimatums when questioned.
The controversy surrounding the 2025 budget stems from the reported inclusion of blank allocations, raising legitimate concerns about transparency and accountability. Budget laws exist to ensure that every peso is accounted for, and any irregularities must be scrutinized, not dismissed. If there is nothing to hide, there should be no fear of judicial review. The Supreme Court must uphold the Constitution, and its ruling—whatever it may be—must be respected. Any attempt to strong-arm the judiciary into submission is an affront to the rule of law and a clear deviation from democratic principles.
Public officials are not above scrutiny, especially when handling taxpayer money. Government funds are collected from the people, and the people have every right to demand an honest and detailed account of where their money is going. A president who threatens to shut down the government over legal challenges is essentially saying that public accountability is negotiable. That is unacceptable. No official, no matter how high-ranking, should expect to wield power without being held to account. The presidency, whoever holds that office, is not a personal fiefdom but a public trust, and those unwilling to subject themselves to scrutiny have no place in public office.
A government shutdown would not punish the Supreme Court or silence critics—it would cripple essential services, disrupt public programs, and hurt ordinary citizens. It would stall infrastructure projects, delay the salaries of government employees, and create unnecessary instability. Such a move would be reckless and self-serving, prioritizing political ego over national interest. A president who truly serves the people would focus on addressing concerns about the budget’s legitimacy rather than issuing threats that serve no purpose other than to instill fear and suppress dissent.
The best course of action is simple: comply with constitutional processes, ensure budget transparency, and respect the Supreme Court’s authority. If the budget is sound, then let it withstand judicial scrutiny. If anomalies exist, then they must be corrected. Governance must be rooted in integrity, not intimidation. The Filipino people deserve leaders who uphold democracy, not those who seek to subvert it when faced with accountability.
