MANILA, Philippines — A fresh controversy is emerging over the proposed ₱7.2-trillion national budget for 2027, after a House lawmaker questioned whether unusually large allocations in the government’s National Expenditure Program (NEP) could later be reduced to create room for congressional budget insertions.
ACT Teachers party-list Rep. Antonio Tinio raised the issue as the House began scrutinizing the 2027 NEP, warning that a pattern seen in previous budgets may be repeated.
Tinio said certain items appear to be “padded” in the NEP only to be substantially reduced once Congress approves the final General Appropriations Act (GAA). According to him, the resulting difference can create what lawmakers have described as “fiscal space” for other spending items.
The allegation does not, by itself, establish that funds were illegally inserted or that corruption occurred. Rather, it raises a question about how large differences between the President’s proposed budget and the final congressional version are created and where the resulting funds ultimately go.
Where the numbers raised questions
Tinio pointed to foreign-assisted infrastructure projects as examples.
For the Department of Transportation (DOTr), foreign-assisted projects were proposed at about ₱135.85 billion in the 2026 NEP but were reduced to roughly ₱64.07 billion in the enacted budget—a decrease of more than half.
A similar pattern was seen in the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH). Its foreign-assisted projects were proposed at around ₱100 billion in the 2026 NEP but ended up at approximately ₱17.7 billion in the enacted budget.
The figures have also drawn scrutiny from other lawmakers. Davao Rep. Isidro Ungab previously warned that deep cuts to foreign-assisted projects could delay major infrastructure programs, including portions of the Metro Manila Subway and North-South Commuter Railway.
Tinio’s concern is that such reductions can effectively create room for other congressional priorities during the budget process.
Former budget chief echoes concern
The issue is not limited to Tinio.
Former Budget Secretary and Monetary Board member Benjamin Diokno has also raised concerns about how the bicameral conference committee handled the national budgets for 2023, 2024 and 2025.
Diokno said the bicameral process went beyond simply reconciling differences between the House and Senate versions and, in some instances, resulted in new spending items and shifts between departments.
He cited repeated reductions in foreign-assisted transportation projects alongside increases in DPWH allocations as a particularly notable example.
In the 2024 budget, for instance, the NEP proposed ₱161.3 billion for 15 foreign-assisted DOTr projects, including funding for the Metro Manila Subway and North-South Commuter Railway. Much of that allocation was subsequently removed from the enacted budget, while the DPWH allocation increased from the President’s proposed ₱822.2 billion to ₱997.9 billion.
Diokno described the resulting “fiscal space” as a pool that could accommodate congressional initiatives. He also warned that cutting foreign-assisted projects can have long-term economic consequences because delays can increase costs and postpone the benefits of major infrastructure projects.
Why the 2027 budget is under a microscope
The controversy comes as Congress begins work on the proposed ₱7.2-trillion 2027 national budget, which is about 6% higher than the 2026 spending plan.
The Department of Education has the largest proposed allocation at ₱976 billion, while the DPWH is slated for about ₱644 billion.
The proposed DPWH budget includes approximately ₱107.4 billion for flood-control projects, a figure that is being closely watched because of the continuing government investigation into alleged irregularities in flood-control spending.
The 2027 budget is therefore entering Congress under unusually intense public scrutiny.
Sen. Panfilo “Ping” Lacson has separately flagged several lump-sum infrastructure allocations in the proposed budget, saying lawmakers should demand details when projects are grouped together without a clear breakdown of individual project costs.
Lacson said lump-sum appropriations may be appropriate for unpredictable expenses such as calamity response but questioned their use for infrastructure projects, where project details can and should be identified.
DBM pushes back
The Department of Budget and Management has not accepted the characterization that the NEP is deliberately padded.
Acting Budget Secretary Kim Robert de Leon explained that the amounts proposed in the NEP for foreign-assisted projects were based on evaluated agency requirements.
He also acknowledged that reductions in the enacted budget can contribute to delays in implementing foreign-assisted projects.
That distinction matters: a difference between the NEP and the final GAA does not automatically mean that funds were illegally padded or inserted. Congress has constitutional authority to deliberate on and amend the executive’s proposed budget.
The controversy centers instead on how those changes are made, whether they are adequately disclosed, and whether they serve legitimate national priorities.
Transparency becomes the bigger issue
The latest controversy has renewed calls for greater transparency during the congressional budget process, particularly during the bicameral conference committee stage where House and Senate versions are reconciled.
The DBM has backed efforts to open bicameral deliberations to greater public scrutiny, saying livestreaming or otherwise making the process more transparent could strengthen accountability and public trust.
That proposal comes as lawmakers confront a central question: Can Congress prevent the kind of last-minute budget changes that critics say have made previous national budgets difficult for the public to track?
For taxpayers, the issue goes beyond technical budget terminology.
Every peso moved from one program to another represents a decision about which projects receive funding, which projects are delayed and which government priorities take precedence.
As Congress reviews the ₱7.2-trillion 2027 spending plan, the challenge will be to determine whether the differences between the NEP and the eventual GAA are legitimate budget adjustments—or whether they create opportunities for opaque and difficult-to-track insertions.
And with lawmakers already warning about questionable lump sums and alleged budget padding, the most closely watched part of the 2027 budget may not be what is written in the proposal today—but what changes before the final version reaches the President’s desk.
Leave a Reply