THE Philippines has long taken pride in its commitment to gender equality. One of the clearest expressions of that commitment is the mandatory Gender and Development (GAD) allocation in government budgets.
Under policies implementing Republic Act (RA) 9710, or the Magna Carta of Women, government agencies and local governments must allocate at least 5 percent of their annual budgets to gender programs.The intent is straightforward: ensure that public policies and services take into account the needs of women and vulnerable sectors.After more than two decades, however, it may be time to ask whether the system is producing the results it promised.Compliance insteadof reformInside many government offices, the GAD fund has quietly become something else: a budget line that must be spent before the year ends.Instead of shaping policy, it often finances activities during International Women’s Month in March or the 18-day campaign against violence to women and children in November, like seminars, workshops, Zumba sessions, team-building activities, purple shirts, flowers, cards and tarpaulin banners.These activities are not harmful. But they rarely change how institutions actually operate.A GAD orientation seminar does not automatically produce gender-responsive policies. A one-day training does not immediately transform how services are delivered to women.Oversight bodies, such as the Commission on Audit and the Philippine Commission on Women, have repeatedly noted cases where GAD funds were used for activities with little connection to real gender issues in the agency concerned.Part of the problem is simple: many offices struggle to identify gender-specific concerns within their sector. When the problem is unclear, spending the allocation becomes the objective.Compliance becomes the goal.Meanwhile, the deeper challenges remain. Domestic violence persists. Women are still underrepresented. Workplace inequality has hardly disappeared.A few months ago, I witnessed how young female engineers lamented being relegated as receiving clerks and were made to feel inferior in government project sites, yet they were expected to make an impact.Mandatory funding alone does not produce social change.Gender policy shouldnot be a side programGender equality programs remain necessary. But the way government funds them deserves a closer look.Gender mainstreaming was meant to influence the everyday decisions of government agencies. In practice, the GAD allocation sometimes sits outside the core work of those agencies.A better approach may be to embed gender-responsive thinking directly into agency programs and budgets.Instead of asking whether 5 percent was spent, policymakers should ask a more meaningful question: Did the agency’s programs actually improve the lives and protection of women?That shift would move the conversation from spending to results.Disaster preparednessis also a gender issueOne area where this shift could matter immediately is disaster preparedness.The Philippines lives with the constant threat of typhoons, floods, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Entire communities can be displaced overnight.The country has a disaster management framework under RA 10121, or Philippine the Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010. But gaps in preparedness remain visible in many places.Evacuation centers are often overcrowded. Privacy is limited. Security can be weak.When disasters strike, women and children frequently bear the heaviest risks. Reports of harassment and exploitation in evacuation centers are not uncommon. Loss of livelihoods after disasters can also affect women working in informal sectors more severely.Better evacuation facilities, stronger early warning systems and gender-sensitive emergency protocols would protect entire communities. They would also address many of the risks women face during disasters.In that sense, allowing GAD resources to support gender-responsive disaster preparedness could deliver more tangible protection than routine compliance activities.Time for an honestpolicy reviewAcross national agencies and local governments, the mandatory 5-percent GAD allocation represents a substantial amount of public money each year.The question is not whether gender equality remains important; it clearly does. The question is whether the current system is the best way to pursue it.Policies evolve. Mechanisms that once pushed institutions to act can eventually become routine exercises in compliance.If the goal is real protection for women, not just paperwork, then the structure of GAD funding deserves an honest review.In a country as vulnerable to disasters as the Philippines, strengthening resilience while protecting vulnerable sectors may be one of the most practical ways to honor the spirit behind gender policy — not just spending the money, but spending it where it matters.