Contesting the 2026 National Budget
A coalition of civil society organizations has raised alarms over the National Expenditure Program for 2026, asserting that the House of Representatives’ current version includes about P230 billion in pork barrel allocations and patronage-driven projects. The People’s Budget Coalition argues that the House Budget Amendments Review Subcommittee inserted billions into programs they deem politically tainted, while omitting safeguards against opaque line items that could be abused.
The group highlighted specific programs they say embody patronage politics, including the Department of Social Welfare and Development’s Aid to Individuals in Crisis Situation (AICS), the Department of Labor and Employment’s Tulong Panghanapbuhay sa Ating Disadvantaged/Displaced Workers (TUPAD), and the Department of Health’s Medical Assistance to Indigent and Financially Incapacitated Patients (MAIPFIP). The coalition says these and similar allocations undermine transparency and accountability in the budget process.
Beyond these programs, the coalition also criticized line items described as opaque, such as confidential funds and unprogrammed appropriations. They warn that such features open the door to misuse and erode public trust in how taxpayer money is allocated and spent.
“We have lost trust in the integrity of the budget process. We estimate that there is still at least P230 billion in pork barrel and patronage-based projects,” the coalition stated. They stressed that the figure is separate from local infrastructure funding under the Department of Public Works and Highways and the Department of Agriculture, and from P250 billion in unprogrammed appropriations cited by the watchdog.
The coalition warned that these allocations effectively entrench pork barrel politics, enabling politicians to wield control over access to services and potentially coercing citizens to advocate for benefits they are legally entitled to receive. They called for reallocating these funds toward more accountable and transparent programs that advance social protection and development.
The House, however, pushes back against the charges. House appropriations senior vice chair Albert Garcia rejected the claim that the 2026 budget contains congressional pork. He argued that MAIFIP, TUPAD, and AICS are “normal programs” that continue to benefit the poor. He also noted that funds for these programs were discussed during hearings and plenary sessions and were defended by their sponsors before approval.
“This 2026, there’s still a budget for those programs. And this was deliberated during the budget hearings and at the plenary. And it was defended by the respective sponsors and this was approved,” Garcia said in a briefing ahead of a House subpanel meeting. He added that the budget is an ongoing work in progress and that adjustments to unprogrammed appropriations are being made in response to feedback and calls from the public and minority lawmakers.
The lawmaker also said the House subcommittees are actively revising unprogrammed funds, underlining that deliberations and adjustments aim to reflect the needs of the people rather than exclusive pork-barrel interests.
The People’s Budget Coalition maintains that such funds should be reallocated toward rules-based social protection, health, and sustainable development programs. They argue that investments in enhanced public transportation, land distribution, and agricultural support are underfunded and that real progress requires more transparent budgeting and stronger accountability mechanisms.
As this year’s budget moves through the House and into bicameral negotiations, the public awaits a resolution that reaffirms the integrity of the budget process. Senate discussions and a conference committee will determine how the final 2026 national budget balances urgency with transparency, and legitimacy with accountability.
Public confidence hinges on clear reporting, robust oversight, and a commitment to prioritizing essential programs that serve the most vulnerable. The debate over pork barrel versus programmatic spending will continue to be a defining feature of budgeting in the Philippines, shaping how citizens experience government services in the years ahead.
