While the debate rages on whether or not the President should exercise his veto power to prevent the bastardization of the 2025 national budget, one of Mr. Marcos’ former Senate peers said he should use his persuasive powers first.

Former Senate President Franklin Drilon said budget realignments were undertaken in the bicameral conference committee to produce a pork barrel, which are the projects of the members of Congress.

The budget items would become the pork barrel if these are not included in the appropriations bill which the President submitted.

In the version of the bicameral conference committee, P288 billion was added to the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) budget.

When the President submitted his budget, Drilon said the DPWH had a P825-billion allocation but after it went through the bicam, this was bloated to P1.113 trillion.

How is the pork barrel in the DPWH funded?

Drilon said it must be covered by an appropriation from the other departments because if you just allow the addition, then the total budget will be higher by P288 billion which is not allowed under the Constitution.

Drilon said Congress cannot increase the budget that was submitted by the President. “So what did they do? They got the appropriation of the other agencies to provide funding for the pork barrel.”

Where did they get the money to cover the pork barrel? According to Drilon, P10 billion came from the Department of Education, P50 billion from the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) of the Department of Social Welfare and Development, P74 billion from the subsidy to the Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (PhilHealth), P30 billion from the Commission on Higher Education (CHEd).

The P288 billion in the DPWH pork barrel was itemized because the Supreme Court (SC) had declared as unconstitutional the previous practice of putting it in a lump sum and identifying the projects after the budget was signed.

The amount was raised from the funds deducted from the various agencies. The amount is a pork barrel since these are pet projects of senators and House members that were submitted to their respective chairpersons in the bicam to be inserted in the budget.

“If implemented properly, the pork barrel can have some use and help our countrymen. The SC, however, said you can’t have the pork barrel as a lump sum,” according to Drilon.

Also, the Constitution provides that the education sector shall have the highest budget, not the Department of Education alone, but including the CHEd, state universities and colleges, and the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (Tesda).

Drilon’s statement was in response to the DPWH’s budget ballooning to a record high.

While we respect the President’s sole authority whether or not to exercise his veto power on the recently legislated 2025 national budget, the Constitution, specifically Article XIV Sec 5 (5), is unequivocal in giving “education the highest budgetary priority.”

In the approval of the budget, the President has the power of a line-item veto, which means he has the power to reject certain sections of the General Appropriations Bill so that the constitutional mandate can be complied with.

Drills listed another option available to the President, aside from the veto, which is for him to return the budget and ask the bicam to reconvene.

The former Senate leader said that the bicam cannot realign the 4Ps program since it is authorized by a special law.

“While the President cannot order Congress, he can exercise his persuasive powers to ask Congress to reconvene the bicam and consider the changes. If his request is not followed then he can exercise his power to veto certain items in the appropriations bill to return the funds to where these were intended originally,” according to Drilon.

The President has the power to realign savings and there are funds available since the P288 billion from DPWH is backed up by funds coming in as part of programmed appropriations coming from taxes.

The unequivocal assessment of the former Senate chief is that pork is alive and kicking despite the SC’s 2013 decision declaring it and other similar legislative discretionary funds as unconstitutional.