THE House-approved 2027 national budget is before the Senate, carrying a question: Who decides where public money goes, and under what rules? The House passed a P7.2-trillion General Appropriations bill on Oct. 12. Watchdogs have identified allocations they say are vulnerable to patronage and thousands of projects absent from the president’s proposed budget. These claims deserve scrutiny, not reflexive dismissal or automatic condemnation. The same standards should apply across districts and administrations, regardless of the party in power or the politician who may benefit.
Congress has constitutional authority to amend the National Expenditure Program (NEP) of the executive. An insertion alone does not prove wrongdoing. Legislators may identify needs overlooked in the executive proposal, and public spending can support jobs and services. But authority is not a blank check. Every substantial change needs a public purpose, defensible basis and record showing who proposed it, why and how it will be carried out.
Civil society groups have given the Senate reason to ask questions. The People’s Budget Coalition has flagged more than P1 trillion in allocations vulnerable, in its view, to political discretion. Social Watch Philippines has identified about P427 billion in programs it says may be exposed to hard or soft pork. The coalition and BetterGov.ph reported nearly 7,000 House-added projects worth roughly P190 billion with no corresponding entries in the NEP. These figures are not findings of guilt. They map questions officials must answer.
Can the corruption alleged in the flood control funds controversy really be traced to one mastermind? The Ombudsman has publicly accused former House speaker Martin Romualdez as the alleged mastermind. Romualdez has disputed that charge. His denial, however, does not resolve the allegations, and former House appropriations committee chairman Zaldy Co’s flight only deepens public suspicion. The institutional question still deserves attention. Public anger understandably seeks a face for wrongdoing. Yet simply focusing on named suspects can leave the other decision-makers, procedures and incentives beyond scrutiny.
The House deliberated on the 2027 budget after Romualdez left the speakership. He was arrested after a plunder case was filed. Zaldy Co is on the run. Yet watchdogs flagged large additions and discretionary allocations. Those concerns alone prove neither that Romualdez or Co is guilty nor that every new item is improper. They do, however, challenge a simple explanation: that removing them will make the problem disappear. The persistence of similar concerns after Romualdez’s detention and Co’s flight should direct attention to the process, without prejudging guilt or innocence.
Budget decisions travel across institutions. The executive proposes; legislators amend; agencies advise and implement; the chambers reconcile; the president signs or vetoes. Accounts in the flood control corruption investigation describe exchanges among House actors, public works officials and executive officials over allocations. Accountability must follow the record through every institution. It cannot end at the most politically convenient names.
Consider Ilocos Norte’s first district. Watchdogs report its proposed public works allocation rose from P369.4 million in the president’s budget to P4.74 billion in the House version. The increase may be justified; the district may have legitimate needs. But need or legality should be established. The Senate should publish project lists, locations, engineering basis, costs, proponents and agency assessments, then explain the change. The increase invites questions, not a verdict; evidence should be assessed consistently for allies and critics alike.
The same discipline applies to social assistance. AICS, medical aid, livelihood programs, scholarships and agricultural support can help people facing hardship. But opaque distribution, or the appearance of favors from politicians, risks turning public service into political dependence. Assistance should follow clear eligibility rules, be administered by accountable agencies and connect to durable support: decent work, education, health care, livelihoods and stronger local economies. With the 2028 elections approaching, discretionary programs carry risks of political credit-claiming, whether or not officials intend it.
The Supreme Court’s recent ruling on unprogrammed appropriations reinforces the need for limits. The Court did not declare them unconstitutional in every circumstance. It emphasized safeguards, including that Congress cannot increase the president’s total recommended appropriations through unprogrammed funds, as well as defined release conditions and funding sources. A mechanism may be lawful in principle and still invite abuse when boundaries are vague. Tightening one channel will not remove incentives to route discretion through another.
The public should watch the Senate and bicameral conference closely. For each major departure from the National Expenditure Program, lawmakers should disclose the amendment, sponsor, agency review, supporting documents, beneficiaries and implementation schedule. The final budget should preserve that paper trail. Hearings and project-level data should allow comparison of the executive proposal, House and Senate versions, and enacted law. Where evidence is missing, the Senate should demand it before approving the item.
Legislators should distinguish needed investment from political visibility. A popular project may be poorly designed; a lawful program may invite favoritism. Larger allocations create jobs only if projects are ready, properly costed and fairly selected. The test is whether spending answers a demonstrated need through a process that can withstand public examination.
Proven misconduct must have consequences. Investigators should follow evidence, including to powerful officials. Institutional reform cannot wait for a verdict against one person. Congress should clarify amendment standards, agencies disclose the basis for changes and auditors trace funds from authorization to delivery. Individual accountability and system repair are both necessary.
The cast may change while incentives remain. If suspect allocations continue after a speaker’s fall, the country should ask what in the budget process makes them possible. A search for one mastermind may identify responsibility. It can also distract from relationships, discretion and weak safeguards that let questionable practices recur. The public should demand fair investigations and a budget process that does not depend on personal assurances.
The 2027 budget is an opportunity to show that lessons from the flood control scandal changed behavior. The Senate can remove unjustified items, improve documentation and apply a public standard to amendments. The bicameral committee can make decisions traceable. If vulnerable allocations survive under new names, the country will have changed the cast without changing the script. The old politics of pork will have outlived its old masters.
Antonio P. Contreras is a professor at the University of the Philippines Los Baños and vice chairman of the board of PTV Network.