The recent exchange of accusations between President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and former President Rodrigo Duterte over alleged constitutional violations in the 2025 national budget has ignited a significant controversy.

At the heart of this debate is the claim made by Duterte, echoing Representative Isidro Ungab, that the budget contains unconstitutional “blanks,” suggesting a lack of transparency and the potential misuse of public funds. President Marcos Jr. has refuted this claim, asserting that the budget underwent proper scrutiny and complies with constitutional requirements.

This conflict raises important questions about accountability, governance, and the political dynamics between two influential figures in Philippine politics.

Representative Ungab’s assertion about “blanks” in the budget refers to allocations that purportedly lack detailed appropriations or explicit purposes. The Constitution mandates that the national budget must be comprehensive and specific, ensuring that taxpayer money is allocated transparently and used effectively. If these blanks indeed exist, it would indicate a serious lapse in fiscal responsibility, potentially opening doors to corruption and inefficiency.

Former President Duterte, known for his no-nonsense approach to governance, seized upon Ungab’s statement to criticize the Marcos administration. Duterte’s claim carries weight due to his popularity and his administration’s focus on law and order, which included measures to curb corruption. His accusation suggests a broader concern about the current administration’s fiscal management and the integrity of its governance practices.

On the other hand, President Marcos Jr. has categorically denied the allegation, emphasizing that the budget process adheres to strict guidelines and undergoes a thorough examination by Congress. Marcos’s defense aligns with his administration’s efforts to project stability and competence, especially in addressing economic challenges and implementing infrastructure projects.

By refuting Duterte’s claim, Marcos seeks to maintain public confidence in his leadership and dismiss any notion of impropriety.

Determining who is telling the truth in this dispute is complex. Both parties have vested political interests that may influence their statements. Duterte’s criticism could be interpreted as part of a broader strategy to position himself as a critical voice or even as a potential leader of the opposition. Conversely, Marcos’s denial reflects his need to defend his administration’s credibility and prevent any erosion of public trust.

To uncover the truth, the matter warrants an independent and transparent investigation. The Commission on Audit (CoA), an independent constitutional body, plays a crucial role in ensuring fiscal accountability. By thoroughly examining the 2025 national budget, the CoA can assess its compliance with constitutional requirements and verify whether the supposed blanks exist. An investigation would provide an impartial assessment, resolve the controversy, and restore public confidence in the budget process.

This issue also highlights the need for greater transparency and public engagement in the budget process. Ensuring that every peso is accounted for and allocated to specific purposes should not merely be a constitutional requirement but a cornerstone of good governance.

Lawmakers and government agencies must work collaboratively to address ambiguities and ensure that budgetary decisions align with the public’s best interests.

As a whole, the dispute between President Marcos Jr. and former President Duterte underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in governance. While both leaders present contrasting narratives, the truth must emerge through an impartial investigation in adherence with constitutional principles.

Ultimately, the resolution of this issue will test the resilience of the country’s democratic institutions and uphold the public’s demand for honest and effective leadership.