2026 national budget still prone to corruption

By Joseph Bernard A. Marzan

Despite the removal of funding for flood control projects under the Department of Public Works and Highways, the proposed 2026 national budget may still be vulnerable to corruption through government social programs, according to the leader of a budget watchdog group.

The House of Representatives and the Senate concluded their bicameral conference committee (bicam) deliberations on Thursday, Dec. 18, approving the final PHP 6.793 trillion General Appropriations Bill.

One of the key changes in the final 2026 General Appropriations Bill (GAB) was the reduction in the Department of Public Works and Highways’ (DPWH) allocation to PHP 529 billion, a decrease of PHP 351 billion from the PHP 881 billion proposed under the executive branch’s National Expenditure Program.

The reduction came amid continuing controversies surrounding flood control projects nationwide, which have long been flagged by watchdog groups for alleged inefficiencies and corruption.

Several agencies benefited from the DPWH budget cut, including the Philippine Health Insurance Corp., which received an additional PHP 16.52 billion, and the Department of Agriculture’s farm-to-market roads program, whose allocation more than doubled to PHP 33 billion from PHP 16 billion in the National Expenditure Program.

However, the bicameral committee retained unprogrammed appropriations and so-called “soft” pork barrel or “ayuda” programs in the reconciled budget.

These assistance programs include the Medical Assistance to Indigent and Financially Incapacitated Patients under the Department of Health, the Assistance to Individuals in Crisis Situations (AICS) under the Department of Social Welfare and Development, and the Tulong Dunong program for tertiary students under the Commission on Higher Education.

AJ Montesa, co-convener of the People’s Budget Coalition, said that while these programs are intended to help the poorest Filipinos, they also encourage patronage politics.

“The reason why these [aid programs] are bad is because they become patronage [programs]. A patron-client relationship develops between the lawmaker and the recipient,” Montesa told Daily Guardian On Air on Friday, Dec. 19.

Montesa cited aid distribution activities near the 2025 elections in which incumbent lawmakers and candidates appeared before beneficiaries.

He said this practice was more damaging than the recently reported cases of AICS deductions involving barangay officials in Iloilo City.

“The concept of a patron-client relationship is worse, because this is where they use the program to essentially buy votes,” he said.

Montesa acknowledged positive developments in the reconciled 2026 General Appropriations Bill, particularly in the education sector.

He noted that the final education allocation of PHP 1.3 trillion was equivalent to about 4.5% of the country’s gross domestic product.

He said this marked the first time the education budget fell within the 4%–6% of GDP benchmark set under the Education 2030 Framework for Action (FFA) of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

The Education 2030 FFA was adopted during the 38th UNESCO General Conference in Paris, France, as part of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 4 on quality education.

NOT-SO-OPEN BICAM

The bicameral conference committee on the 2026 budget was notable for being the first to be livestreamed on the social media platforms of both chambers of Congress.

Montesa said the livestreaming still fell short of meaningful transparency and public participation.

“What they gave us during the open bicam was just livestreaming, meaning we only had passive participation. We were just watching. We are all in the same boat. […] We hope there would have been more chances to participate. We hoped for the data to be more open,” he said.

He contrasted this with their experience in the Senate budget process, where civil society groups were able to engage directly with Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian, chair of the Senate finance committee.

“[Gatchalian] invited the CSOs. There was a hearing where it was all just CSOs and he listened to our suggestions,” Montesa said.

“One of the good things that came out of the Senate in the approach with CSOs is that he shared the data with us, [including] the line items of the DPWH, the farm-to-market roads, etc., and we were able to mobilize civic tech volunteers. We were able to make analyses and flag duplicated projects, projects with overpricing, so we were able to help because of that,” he added.

Montesa said the Senate’s version of the budget was not visible during bicameral deliberations.

“One of the issues we saw when we were monitoring was that they were showing [spreadsheets] where they were reading amounts from. But we noticed that the Senate versions were not being shown, just the House versions. So, we were confused for a bit. Where was this data coming from?” he said.

He also raised concerns about the appearance of Public Works Secretary Vince Dizon during the bicameral deliberations.

Montesa said issues with the Senate committee report on the DPWH budget should have been resolved at the committee level, not during the bicameral process.

“The only work of the bicam is to reconcile the versions of the House and the Senate. Usually, department secretaries are given the chance to explain during [chamber] committee budget hearings. […] The fact that they are suddenly inviting resource persons to explain [during the bicam] is a bit worrying,” he said.

He further expressed alarm that some department heads were reportedly writing to individual lawmakers to request realignments during the bicameral stage.

“There’s nothing wrong with that if it would be aligned with the departments’ programs, [but] the problem there is, why now? Like it’s 11:59 p.m., deadline of the homework, and suddenly they change their answers, and that is worrying,” he said.

Montesa reiterated his group’s call for the establishment of a budget transparency server similar to platforms developed by the Commission on Elections during election periods.