In her “No” vote to the bicameral conference committee report on the 2025 national budget of P6.352 trillion, Senator Risa Hontiveros highlighted the slashing of funds for essential programs while that for unprogrammed items grew by P373 billion.

Unprogrammed funds are part of the budget but their sources are not specified.

Under the Constitution, funding for these budget items are contingent on: (a) the release of new loan proceeds for foreign-assisted projects; (b) revenue collections from new tax laws; and (c) an increase in non-tax revenue collections over target.

In the 2024 national budget, however, the Department of Finance was allowed to scrounge for idle funds in government-owned or —controlled corporations to finance unprogrammed items.

Out of the bicam, the funding for essential health, social protection and education programs was slashed.

Unprogrammed funds rose to P531.6 billion, or P373 billion, more compared to the National Expenditure Program (NEP) which was the proposal from the Executive.

The Constitution provides in Section 25 (1) of Article VI that: “The Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the President for the operation of the government as specified in the budget” or the NEP.

The prohibition on Congress increasing the appropriations recommended by the President covers both programmed appropriations, which have available fund sources, and unprogrammed appropriations.

Hontiveros flagged the substantial increase in unprogrammed items as questionable and having great potential for misuse.

The bicam version was deeply concerning because it drastically reduced funding for essential sectors like public health and education.

With a legislator skeptical of her peers’ intentions in the final version of the General Appropriations Bill, what more the mere mortals on the streets?

One of the significant changes in the bicam version was the “zero state subsidy” for PhilHealth in 2025.

“I understand that PhilHealth has been mismanaged, but eliminating the state subsidy entirely is not the solution. Instead of abandoning our responsibility to millions of indirect contributors — including poor families, senior citizens, persons with disability, and other vulnerable individuals — we should focus on replacing the incompetent management,” Hontiveros asserted.

She is among the legislators who believe that denying PhilHealth a subsidy violates the Universal Health Care Act, which mandates an annual premium augmentation for indirect contributors in the General Appropriations Act.

The Sin Tax Reform Act also requires annual allocations to the National Health Insurance Program from sin tax revenues.

Hontiveros indicated that “these legal obligations cannot be disregarded simply because PhilHealth has excess or reserve funds.”

Without a state subsidy, PhilHealth may operate at a net loss, which will undoubtedly affect benefit payments and compromise its capacity to provide financial protection and support to Filipinos in times of need.

Her colleagues dismissed concerns over the assistance to those who are not capable of paying the monthly PhilHealth premiums, saying the P600-billion reserve fund would take care of it.

The amount is not a surplus but a required reserve, particularly important considering the administration’s plan to increase the benefit packages.

Ultimately, removing the government’s contribution to PhilHealth begs the question of who will bear the cost of indirect contributors’ premiums.

“Will it fall on ordinary workers who already have their salaries deducted for PhilHealth each month? And considering that the subsidy should come from sin tax revenues, where then would these revenues go?” Hontiveros asked.

PhilHealth has P1.252 trillion in insurance contract liabilities or the estimated payout to its members, which means that if another pandemic strikes, PhilHealth will again incur a huge deficit since it has only half of the required pool of money.

The suspicion, raised since the bicam was held behind closed doors, is that most of the unprogrammed items were regular programs of agencies that were bumped off to make way for pork barrel insertions.

Based on Hontiveros’ estimate, that would be P373 billion worth of pork to further fatten the pockets of Senate and House members in 2025.