Trust, Concrete, and Cash

At 2:22 a.m. on a Thursday, the Philippine Congress did what it does best: passed a multi-trillion-peso budget under the cover of darkness, declaring it “corruption-free” while the ink was still wet. Senator Sherwin Gatchalian’s assurance that the 2026 General Appropriations Act is “transparent” rings hollow when the most contentious decisions – specifically the restoration of billions in public works funds – were finalized behind closed doors.

The core issue lies in the resurrection of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) budget. After initially slashing PHP 45 billion due to “insufficient initial data” and miscalculations, the Bicameral Conference Committee restored a significant portion of this funding based on a last-minute apology and a promise of “better data” from Secretary Vince Dizon.

This “Trust Me” defense is insufficient for a portfolio historically riddled with irregularities. Civil society groups like the Right to Know, Right Now and People’s Budget Coalition have rightly flagged that restoring these funds without a public, itemized list creates a “backdoor” for corruption. We are not dealing with small change; we are dealing with tens of billions of pesos. When a department admits its initial math was wrong, the burden of proof shouldn’t be a closed-door presentation to a few senators—it should be a line-item disclosure to the public.

Real research supports this skepticism. The Department of Finance (DOF) has previously estimated that the Philippines loses tens of billions annually to corruption in infrastructure projects. Furthermore, recent audits and investigations into “ghost projects” in flood control suggest that “insufficient data” is often a euphemism for padded costs. Senator Gatchalian’s declaration of a clean budget is a political statement, not an audited fact. Until the Bicam releases the specific line-item adjustments for public scrutiny, the “corruption-free” tag is merely a branding exercise.

The most telling admission of the budget process, however, is not what was restored, but what was realigned. The House of Representatives successfully moved PHP 32.6 billion from DPWH flood control projects to fund the Assistance to Individuals in Crisis (AICS) program, ballooning the social aid budget to PHP 63.9 billion.

This trade-off is a double-edged sword that exposes a grim reality. On one hand, the boost to AICS is a necessary lifeline; as Senator Erwin Tulfo noted, the unpredictability of disasters leaves millions of Filipinos reliant on immediate cash aid for survival. On the other hand, sourcing this money from flood control is a tacit admission of failure. Senator Gatchalian himself justified the move by noting that the previous funding source, the SAGIP fund, was “abused.”

By stripping PHP 32.6 billion from flood control to pay for disaster relief, the government is effectively conceding that it is better at handing out envelopes to flood victims than building the dams that would prevent the floods in the first place. It is a cycle of learned helplessness financed by taxpayers. While the immediate beneficiaries of AICS will feel relief, the communities left vulnerable by unbuilt or substandard flood control infrastructure will pay the price in the long term.

We cannot continue to legislate by deadline, holding the budget hostage to holiday vacation schedules. The solution requires two immediate steps. First, the “open bicam” demanded by civil society must become the standard; the details of the restored DPWH funds must be published before the President signs the bill. Second, if flood control funds were indeed “abused” as Gatchalian admitted, simply moving the money to DSWD is not enough – there must be an investigation and prosecution of the abusers.

Moving money from “corrupt” concrete to “necessary” cash is not a solution but a retreat. We need a budget that builds a resilient nation, not just one that pays for its funeral expenses.