Understanding the claims: Is the 2026 budget really “clean”?
The charge making rounds in Manila headlines is provocative: the 2026 national budget, totaling P6.793 trillion, is not as clean as some observers claim. The central claim is that President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. did not veto any specific spending items. Instead, the lines he struck were limited to unprogrammed appropriations (UA) — funds not yet backed by available money. While this distinction matters, it raises questions about transparency, fiscal management, and how the public can read a budget that blends firmly funded programs with flexible, on-hand allocations.
What are unprogrammed appropriations (UA)?
Unprogrammed appropriations are budget items that do not yet have approved funding or a confirmed source of funds. They are included in a bill to give the executive branch the option to draw on them later as needs arise or as new resources become available. Critics say UAs can obscure real spending levels and reduce the budget’s transparency, because they make it harder to track how much money is truly committed versus what is merely potential. Proponents argue UAs offer necessary flexibility to respond to evolving priorities and emergencies without repeatedly going back to Congress for new approvals.
What did President Marcos actually do in relation to UA?
According to the reporting, the President did not veto individual line items within the budget. Instead, his veto or dissent was aimed at unprogrammed appropriations. This distinction can be decisive: some observers interpret it as a technical move with limited impact on funded programs, while others view it as a strategic signal about controlling contingent or unallocated funds that could be used to maneuver around fiscal constraints.
In practical terms, the effect depends on how the UA are subsequently funded. If the UA are activated, they could influence future spending paths. If they remain unutilized, the budget’s effective size and scope may appear smaller than the headline figure suggests. Analysts point out that a budget dominated by firmly funded programs gives a clearer picture of government commitments; budgets heavy on UAs, even when vetoed in part, can still leave room for discretion later on.
Why this matters for public services and scrutiny
For citizens, the real-world impact hinges on how much money is actually available for immediate programs such as health, education, and infrastructure. When a large share of the budget comprises UA, it can complicate oversight because the balance between promised and pay-ready spending is less transparent. Parliamentarians and watchdog groups may press for more detailed reporting on which UA might be activated, under what conditions, and how that would affect annual deficits and debt levels.
Public accountability in a changing budget landscape
Budget transparency has long been a yardstick of good governance in the Philippines. With a 2026 budget of nearly seven trillion pesos, the stakes for clarity are high. Auditors, lawmakers, and civil society organizations push for clearer, itemized disclosures on all programmatic and unprogrammed components. Even if the veto targeted UAs rather than line items, the broader conversation about how the executive branch manages unprogrammed funds remains central to fiscal discipline and public trust.
What to watch next
Analysts will be watching for how the UA are allocated in the coming months and whether any new appropriations are moved into or out of the UA category. The administration’s communications about the budget’s structure will be key: will they provide a detailed schedule that shows when and how much UA could be activated? Will Congress demand more explicit reporting on the status of these funds? And how will market watchers interpret the budget’s net effect on deficits and public debt?
Bottom line
Labeling the 2026 budget as “sneakiest” may be a provocative shorthand for a deeper, more nuanced story: a spending plan that blends strong, funded public programs with flexible, unprogrammed appropriations. The central question remains the same for citizens and policymakers — how much money is truly committed to serving the people now, and how much depends on future decisions about UA?
