To call it a classic case of quid pro quo may be too benign in so far as the newly signed national budget is concerned, particularly because the business or management model applied therewith shifted from economics to politics. Minus now the leading financial stalwarts like Benjamin Diokno, Felipe Medalla, Alfredo Pascual — all indisputably adept in the so-called Washington Consensus and its set of “ten recommendations” — any argument of a solid economic base for growth would be preposterous.

The current economic team —only one a PhD — consists of the secretaries of finance, budget and management, national economic and development, public works and highways, and the executive secretary. It may be doubtful they can steer the course of sound economic stewardship. The problem with the national budget is not the over-fixation with or the downloading of public funds primarily for “farm-to-market roads” and “multi-purpose halls,” as a former economic adviser might argue, nor of massive “flood-control projects,” the serious accountability paradox of which is of a “force majeure.”

Just when it’s rational to believe that the budget is wholly contained in book form — rendering it theoretically transparent and compliant with the requirements of accountability — still there’s more than meets the eye in this “body of evidence.” If the Supreme Court as much as thinks it had already ruled on the “pork barrel issue” and nothing of the kind now overshadows public spending, the truth is there are “ghosts in the machine” and only the Senate and House of Representatives’ ring leaders know where to pluck them.

Not even the matter of the ever-increasing infusion of public funds into “unprogrammed budgets” has become a worrisome game any more than the sine qua non of the Marcos administration. It’s clearly antithetical to the vaunted notion of a sovereign investment fund and its P250-billion startup intended to replicate a “best practice” model. Besides, one wonders whether indeed the three-layer mechanism of checks and balances or the Santiago principles have really advanced the requirements of transparency and accountability.

Every presidency has a bogeyman — either in the political or economic realm — so whatever choice is made cannot seem to bring about balanced economic development and political development. It has always been the serious business of government to establish a balance between these two overarching factors in constant diametrical opposition.

Though the President vetoed P194 billion worth of line items (i.e. P26 billion allocated to DPWH and P168 billion in “unprogrammed appropriations”), the budget adjustment, nay reduction, in the total final budget of P6.326 trillion was still miniscule. No amount of word games (i.e. “conditional implementation,” equivocating “public funds” with “public trust,” pursuit of “single-digit poverty level,” “surplus funds,” “additional funds” on need basis) could blur the fact that the P26 billion retained for the Ayuda sa Kapos ang Kita Program is intended for dole-outs.

In context, this year’s budget — marked by concerns from various quarters and hastily signed after a token review — may set a dangerous precedent for future budgets. Was the slashed P168 billion just a tiny fraction of the “unprogrammed appropriations?” Otherwise stated, is the “reviewed” national budget now free of pork?