In the ongoing Cabinet revamp, the retention of the economic team’s members made no sense, as the slide in public confidence in the administration began with them.

The yearly budget approval, a sacred process, had been compromised the past two years through a collusion between members of Congress and the economic team.

The devious partnership was intended to revive the pork barrel system that the Supreme Court had declared unconstitutional in a landmark 2013 decision.

The 2024 General Appropriations Act, like its 2025 successor, faced scrutiny for the insertion of discretionary funds allocated to local projects, often for political gain.

A very creative mind in Congress identified unprogrammed appropriations (UA) as the perfect conduit to resurrect the legislative money pool, only there needed to be collusion with members of the executive department.

The UA consists of projects not included in the programmed budget and are contingent on there being excess revenues or new loans, thus, they are not computed in the GAA’s total.

Article VI, Section 25 of the 1987 Constitution that outlines the budget process and governs Congress’ authority over the budget, states: “The Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the President for the operation of the Government as specified in the budget. The form, content, and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law.”

The UA, thus, was a loophole for pork barrel projects.

This was exploited in the 2024 GAA through a specific provision that allowed the Department of Finance (DoF) to redirect excess or dormant funds from government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs) to the UA.

The mechanism was unprecedented as it allowed the transfer of funds from entities like the Philippine Health Insurance Corp, which was identified as having P89.9 billion in reserves in 2023, and the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corp., with an even bigger P250-billion backup kitty.

Eventually, both agencies ended up contributing P267 billion of their “idle funds” to the UA, which was reoriented to facilitate the funding of “pet projects” of members of Congress.

These projects, often local infrastructure or cash aid programs like the Ayuda para sa Kapos ang Kita Program (AKAP), were inserted during the bicameral conference committee’s (bicam) closed-door reconciliations, thereby bypassing legislative scrutiny.

The bicam, tasked with reconciling the House and Senate versions of the GAA, is composed of select members of both chambers and has significant power to realign funds.

In 2024, budget watchdogs said that regular, programmed projects, such as health and education initiatives, were moved to the UA, creating “fiscal space” in the programmed budget.

Pet projects, such as local infrastructure under the Department of Public Works and Highways, which are a source of kickbacks, replaced projects that were moved to the UA.

But since the UA contained crucial projects, the DoF needed to find the money to fund these items immediately.

The seizure of PhilHealth’s funds became contentious given the underfunding of PhilHealth subsidies in the 2024 and 2025 budgets, which left millions of Filipinos without adequate healthcare coverage.

The economic team, particularly the DoF and the Department of Budget and Management, was instrumental in issuing the directive to take the GOCC funds and transfer these to the UA.

The key economic managers, thus, had conspired with Congress, specifically members of the bicam, to allow the insertions.

The budget scam, where the Executive and Congress colluded to prioritize political patronage over genuine development goals, should be grounds for dismissing the economic team.