Budgeting beyond politics to make every peso count
Year after year, we see a persistent problem: the budget process is often detached from actual development plans.
Text size
Year after year, we see a persistent problem: the budget process is often detached from actual development plans.
It is budget season once again and most government agencies will be defending their budgets before the House of Representatives and the Senate. In the Philippines, the national budget is often referred to as the most important policy tool of any administration. It determines how resources will be allocated and reflects the priorities of the government.
However, year after year, we see a persistent problem: the budget process is often detached from actual development plans. Instead of being strategic and forward-looking, budgeting tends to be reactive, shaped more by politics than by purpose. A big example is the enormous budget for flood control projects. It is high time we realign our national budgeting process to be truly anchored on clear, long-term plans.
The country’s development blueprint — the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) — is supposed to guide the executive and legislative branches in crafting the annual budget. This plan outlines the goals, strategies and programs that address national challenges such as poverty, education, infrastructure, climate resilience and digitalization.
But while the PDP looks good on paper, the budget does not always reflect its priorities. What often happens is that funding is spread thin across too many projects, or worse, funneled into low-impact initiatives that serve political ends rather than public needs.
A plan-based budgeting approach ensures continuity and coherence in government programs. For example, infrastructure development should be guided by long-term urban planning and transport blueprints, not by short-term considerations or changes in leadership.
In education, budget allocations should reflect learning recovery strategies, especially post-pandemic, rather than just funding brick-and-mortar school buildings. In agriculture, investments should be aligned with productivity targets and climate-smart strategies, not merely subsidies for popular appeal.
The adoption of the Program Expenditure Classification (PREXC) in recent years is a step in the right direction. It links budgets to outcomes and measurable results. But this reform needs to be fully enforced and supported by political will. Plans must be made more binding, and deviations from them should require justifiable explanation. Congressional insertions or last-minute budget realignments should not be allowed to override the long-term vision laid out in national and local plans.
Local governments, now empowered by the Mandanas-Garcia ruling, also have a crucial role. They must be capacitated to plan better and spend better. The increased internal revenue allotment (IRA) they receive should not only go to immediate, visible projects but to long-term investments in health, disaster preparedness, and economic development—all rooted in their local development plans.
Ultimately, budgeting based on plans is not just about efficiency; it’s about governance and trust. Citizens need to see that their taxes are used for programs that have a real impact, not for patronage. Aligning the budget with the plan also helps insulate public finance from politics and promotes transparency and accountability.
The Philippines cannot afford to waste limited resources. By committing to plan-based budgeting, we ensure that every peso works toward a shared vision of a more inclusive, sustainable, and resilient future.
It’s time we stop budgeting just for the next election and start budgeting for the next generation.
