President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. recently signed the 2025 General Appropriations Act (GAA), a whopping P6.326-trillion budget that is touted to be a game-changer for achieving national recovery, economic growth, and resilience.

However, it didn’t come without controversy, as several provisions were vetoed by the President.

Malacañang claims the 2025 GAA is a “refocused” document that aligns resources to priority areas, but the question remains: Is this budget really a paradigm shift, or are we witnessing the same old patterns dressed in reformist rhetoric?

The vetoed provisions included those deemed unconstitutional or redundant, with the Palace explaining that these measures either infringed upon the executive’s prerogative or duplicated existing programs.

While this may signal a commitment to fiscal discipline and adherence to constitutional mandates, it also raised questions about Congress’s intent when it inserted the provisions. Was this a genuine oversight, or were lawmakers pushing for pet projects in the guise of national priorities?

For example, one controversial veto pertained to the allocation of funds for initiatives not explicitly listed in the National Expenditure Program (NEP). Critics argued this reflected an ongoing struggle between Congress and the executive branch over the power of the purse.

While the President’s veto ostensibly protects the integrity of the NEP, it also underscores the chronic issue of last-minute insertions that lack transparency.

Refocused or recycled priorities?

Malacañang insists the 2025 budget prioritizes key sectors such as education, health, infrastructure, and agriculture. Indeed, these are areas that received significant allocations: education retained the lion’s share, with an increase to address learning recovery post-pandemic, while infrastructure spending remains robust under the “Build Better More” program.

Agriculture, a sector often underfunded, also saw a moderate increase aimed at achieving food security and self-sufficiency.

However, critics remain skeptical. Despite the supposed emphasis on agriculture, many farmers lament that subsidies and support mechanisms remain insufficient to offset rising input costs.

Similarly, while health allocations appear generous, the perennial issue of underspending and bureaucratic inefficiency casts doubt on whether these funds will reach their intended beneficiaries.

The pork barrel question

The elephant in the room is the so-called “pork barrel” and whether the 2025 GAA has adequately addressed the issue of discretionary funds. While no lawmaker admits to having access to pork, watchdog groups note that certain line items still appear opaque.

For instance, the budget contains lump-sum allocations for local projects, which critics warn are ripe for abuse. The President’s vetoes did not seem to have tackled this head-on, leaving a cloud of suspicion over how truly “refocused” this document is.

The balancing act

In fairness, the 2025 GAA does reflect an attempt to align resources with the administration’s Medium-Term Fiscal Framework, which aims for fiscal consolidation while sustaining growth. The focus on infrastructure and social services aligns with long-term goals, but short-term measures to alleviate poverty and inflation remain underwhelming. With inflation still biting and many Filipinos struggling, the budget’s lack of more targeted relief measures is a glaring omission.

While the 2025 GAA is presented as a refocused budget, it is not without flaws. The President’s vetoes, though commendable in some respects, fail to fully address systemic issues such as the lack of transparency, inefficiency, and pork barrel politics.

The document may indeed represent a step in the right direction, but whether it delivers transformative change or perpetuates the status quo depends on its execution.

Filipinos deserve more than just a nominally refocused budget — they deserve one that truly reflects their needs and aspirations.