OPINION | There are aspects of Philippine politics that seem all too familiar: promises of reform, calls for transparency, investigations into corruption, and assurances that past irregularities will not be repeated. Yet, as time passes, it often feels as though we simply return to the status quo. Once public outrage subsides, old habits and practices persist. It is therefore reasonable to ask: Is Congress truly changing, or is it merely reverting to a “normal” budgetary system, one that citizens have long questioned?
In the ongoing discussions regarding the proposed national budget for 2027, allegations have resurfaced concerning “insertions,” unauthorized or questionable modifications made to fund allocations. A few days ago it was reported that budget watchdogs, through an analysis of documents and by monitoring congressional hearings, identified approximately Php 541.4 billion worth of projects they labeled as “pork.” The reported modifications include additional funding for aid programs and infrastructure projects. (These figures are part of allegations and analyses put forward by watchdogs; they do not automatically constitute proof of corruption.)
Adjusting the allocation of the national budget is not inherently wrong. There are instances where funds must be realigned to address the urgent needs of the people. The real issue lies in whether such changes are based on clear justifications, whether they have undergone the proper processes, and whether the benefits truly accrue to the public, instead of serving as instruments for patronage politics or personal interests.
This is where the issue of the “pork barrel” comes in. The Supreme Court has declared the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), along with mechanisms that allowed lawmakers to exercise personal, discretionary control over allocations or intervene in budget implementation beyond their oversight functions, to be unconstitutional. This ruling is significant: One cannot simply rename a mechanism to perpetuate practices that have the same implications for power, accountability, and the use of public funds. (Belgica v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 208566.)
It is therefore not enough to claim that the pork barrel no longer exists simply because the former PDAF has been abolished. One must examine the actual design of these programs, the authority to determine specific projects, the process by which funds are allocated and released, and the extent of control that officials can exert. While not every additional allocation constitutes “pork,” one should not automatically assume that an allocation is legitimate just because it passed through the formal budget approval process.
Even more concerning is the possibility that the national budget could be used as an instrument for patronage politics. When forms of aid, medical services, and employment opportunities become associated with the names or influence of specific politicians, it may foster the belief that government assistance is a personal favor rather than a fundamental right of the citizens. In this situation, institutions are weakened, and people become increasingly dependent on politicians who have the power to provide or authorize aid.
The most severe impact is felt by ordinary Filipinos. While discussions revolve around allocations worth billions of pesos, many families worry about whether their income will suffice for food, electricity, tuition, and medicine. Many workers endure unjust conditions because they have no other means of livelihood. Many young people dream of going abroad because they do not see sufficient opportunities in their own country. In this context, every peso that might be wasted or misused is not merely a figure on a document. It could represent a service that was never delivered, a classroom that was never built, or a program that failed to reach those in need.
At the same time, the citizens’ right to ask questions and protest must not be disregarded. If there are suspected irregularities in the use of funds, it is only fitting for the public to demand an explanation. It should not be easier to silence those who expose problems than it is to investigate the decisions they are questioning. While allegations must be substantiated by evidence, institutions have a duty to ensure that questions are answered clearly and that any proven violations are met with corresponding accountability.
This is why an open budget process is essential: The public should be able to easily compare the Executive branch’s proposal, the changes made by the Legislature, and the final approved version. The rationale behind every significant adjustment should be clearly stated, along with the implementing agency, the criteria for selecting beneficiaries, and the outcomes of the expenditures. Furthermore, there must be independent oversight and meaningful participation from civil society organizations and the citizenry.
That practice cannot be deemed normal simply because it has been done for a long time. A system that repeatedly gives rise to suspicion does not become acceptable just because it has become a habit. The national budget does not belong to lawmakers or those in power; it is the people’s money, and it must be used for the people’s welfare. If Congress has truly changed, that transformation should be evident in clear processes, equitable allocations, and measurable accountability. Otherwise, the public’s question remains valid: Has there been genuine reform, or have old practices simply been given a new name?
The answer should not come in the form of promises; it must be reflected in official documents, in how every peso is spent, and in the lives of the Filipinos who are meant to benefit from the budget.
Enough of political patronage such as AKAP, MAIFIP, and TUPAD. Let us not allow deprioritization of education and health. We should get involved in the budget process. Watchdogs play a significant role in this endeavor, including meticulous individuals like Zy-Za Nadine Suzara, Heidi Mendoza, and Cielo Magno.
Mendoza lost in the last senatorial race and many of us have never stopped playing the fool when it comes to “pulpulitikos” like Robin.
And Magno has eyed a senate seat in 2028: “Nasubukan nyo na po ang nepo baby, dynasty, artista, trapo at corrupt. May bagong option na po kayo.” Let us give her a chance.
Magno, a former Finance Undersecretary and UP School of Economics Professor, is a vocal critic of how the Executive-proposed national budget is crafted, exhorting the use of the line-item veto to the ongoing battle against hidden pork barrel or ayuda politics.
DC Alviar
Professor DC Alviar is a tenured associate professor at National University (NU) Manila and a steering committee member of the Philippine International Studies Organization (PHISO). He has contributed to NU's community extension initiatives that introduced the five disciplines of a learning organization (Senge, 1990) to communities within a local government unit. He writes and edits local reports for Mega Scene. He graduated with Master of Development Communication (MDC) and Doctor of Communication (DComm) degrees from the University of the Philippines (UP) Open University in Los Baños and was awarded with a Commission on Higher Education (CHED) SIKAP grant. He previously served as editor-in-chief of The Adamson News and his high school publication Ang Ugat.
- DC Alviar
- DC Alviar
- DC Alviar
- DC Alviar
