The P6.326-trillion national budget finally signed into law by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. on 30 December 2024, after some delay, has apparently not appeased critics, with some pointing out the President‘s line-item vetoes meant to remedy deficiencies in the budget had failed to do so.

The President delayed signing the budget by nearly a week, saying it needed review after civil society groups, among others, charged Congress with diverting monies from the education and health sectors, as well as services in aid of the poor, to fund lawmakers’ pet projects instead. This was particularly odious in view of the midterm elections coming up in May.

Some P194-billion worth of items “inconsistent with the administration’s priority programs” were vetoed by the President but critics and analysts say these were not enough as the budget approved by the President still failed to meet the constitutional requirement to prioritize health and education.

The President, for instance, went along with the original budget proposed by Congress, slashing the entire P74-billion subsidy for the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation which subsidizes medical expenses of paying PhilHealth members and shouldering costs for non-paying indigent groups.

Members of Congress allied with the President contend that PhilHealth can still provide healthcare services since it has some P400 billion in untapped reserve funds.

However, former Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas deputy governor Diwa C. Guinigundo, country analyst for New York-based macroeconomics and geopolitical research firm GlobalSource Partners, says that justifying the scrapping of the PhilHealth subsidy because of the health insurer’s P400 billion reserve fund is “absurd,” as the fund, he stressed, is meant to cover PhilHealth liabilities that may arise.

Other groups, including the prestigious Makati Business Club, likewise found the President’s retention of the AKAP social amelioration fund objectionable since this fund could very well be abused by lawmakers.

AKAP was initiated by House members led by Speaker Martin Romualdez as a Department of Social Welfare and Development program to dole out from P3,000 to P5,000 to those with incomes below the poverty threshold and who are not covered by other assistance programs. In the original proposed national budget, the House gave it a huge P39.8-billion allocation.

The Senate, in its own version of the budget, originally scrapped the AKAP but it was later restored in the bicameral conference committee with a reduced but still sizeable P26.7 allocation. Of that total, House members were allocated P21 billion and senators, P5 billion.

Many critics charge the AKAP funds could very well be used for political and corrupt purposes like vote-buying in the coming midterm elections.

The President, heeding the loud clamor against what critics labeled as the “most crooked and corrupt” 2025 budget, delayed its approval. But in the final version, which saw expenditures reduced to P6.326 trillion from P6.352 trillion, he retained, as is, the funds for AKAP but went along with a zero subsidy for PhilHealth.

Stressed Guinigundo, “If AKAP is for the poor and was retained, many are in a quandary as to why the PhilHealth subsidy was scrapped when better health insurance coverage directly benefits the poor.”

He lamented the President’s “decision not to touch the (AKAP) allocations for both the House of Representatives and the Senate” even as he pointed out that with the PhilHealth subsidy zeroed out, the 2025 budget signed by the President violates the Constitution and other laws besides.

The Department of Budget and Management emphasized that, altogether, the spending plan has risen 10.1 percent from the previous year’s P5.768 trillion.

However, Guinigundo points out that overall social services spending for education, culture and manpower development, health, social security, welfare, and employment were not given increased allocations and remained at P2.121 trillion.

Meanwhile, Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin acknowledged that while the Executive was “satisfied” with the 2025 budget, “we cannot prevent it if there will be challenges mounted by any quarter who might still find this present budget worthy of the challenge.”

Already, at least two groups, pro-health organizations Medical Action Group and Action for Economic Reforms, have said they will file a case against the government for defunding PhilHealth. Having effected that it is in violation of the Universal Health Care law and the sin tax law, both of which mandate that PhilHealth should receive annual funding from the taxes on tobacco products and sugar-sweetened beverages.

“The 2025 national budget is unconstitutional,” both organizations underscored in a joint statement. “A budget law cannot supersede other existing laws.”

Indeed, with legal challenges being threatened against a (still) controversial national budget, a fourth impeachment complaint expected to be filed against the second highest official of the republic, a critical election happening in May, and an unrestrained superpower continuing to bully its way through our territorial waters, this year promises to be anything but hunky dory in our little corner of the planet.