Questions remain unanswered on the 13 pages with 28 blank items in the Bicam report on the proposed National Budget otherwise known as the General Appropriations Act. The report was signed by the members of the committee and was duly ratified by Congress. The role of the Bicam is to reconcile the two versions of the budget bill, that of the House of Representatives and Senate of the Philippines. The big question, according to Davao City 3rd District Representative Isidro Ungab, “who filled in the blanks after the ratification?”
Congressman Ungab was the Chairperson of the Appropriations Committee of Congress during the administration of President Benigno Aquino III and President Rodrigo Duterte. It is clear that what President Bongbong Marcos and Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin were referring to as complete was the General Appropriations Act (GAA), published in the Department of Budget and Management website, not the Bicam report.
The other question is this – who instructed how the blanks were supposed to be filled in? Who provided the final figure on each item and how was it determined? Were Bicam members informed? Is it legal to do so? Congressman Ungab said that he will be part of the group who will petition the Supreme Court to question the legality of the GAA.
Indeed, powerful hands are at work here. If the Supreme Court will declare the budget as legally infirm, then the government will have a reenacted budget for 2025. In fact, in another vein, Congressman Ungab has reminded his colleagues that the Constitution mandates that education should get the biggest slice of the budget, not public works. This has come into the picture as several sectors have questioned the same, although Malacañang has again denied it.
Let’s leave the legal questions to the legal experts. We are however also interested in the political implications of this latest issue. It is important that Malacañang should be able to provide a satisfactory answer it. People deserve nothing less than a transparent budget process. We cannot, in addition, put aside the issue as regards to the use of precious government resources as ayuda (assistance), which allegedly has become some sort of an obvious form of “legal vote buying”.
The powerful Makati Business Club has expressed its dismay on the budget process. It called for a “more transparent and accountable budget process.” It expressed alarm that 1.1 trillion was allotted for the Department of Public Works and Highways but the Department of Education was only given 737 billion. While Congress allocated billions as dole outs to potential voters, important infrastructure projects for Mindanao have been left without funding, for example, Davao City’s modern bus system and Mindanao Railway.
The World Bank has already approved a loan of one billion dollars for the purchase of a thousand modern buses that will ply several routes in Davao City up to Panabo City. Yet, reports say that Congress did not allocate a counterpart fund for this critical project. No less than Mayor Sebastian Duterte and Congressman Ungab confirmed this sad development. Money given as dole outs will only go down the drain. The program is unsustainable. Unlike the 4Ps program which is based on a proper screening process, the ayuda is given by way of a list that barangay officials allegedly prepare.
The political issues hounding the national budget only make manifest how politics can get in the way of human development and economic progress. Amartya Sen writes in his book Development as Freedom that protecting our political as well as economic rights is crucial. The resolution of this issue is vital to Philippine democracy and how it must serve the interest of the people and not of those who are in position of power.
What is at stake here is not only the integrity of the whole budget process or the approved national budget, which was signed into law by President Bongbong Marcos last December 30, 2024. What is at stake is the integrity of the government and the current administration. Beyond the legal questions, there is a lingering moral question that some people need to answer and should be held accountable if we are to preserve the essence and purpose of our democracy.
