MAMAMAYANG Liberal Rep. Leila de Lima had been tapped by former House speaker Martin Romualdez to join the prosecution panel along with and Akbayan Rep. Chel Diokno as replacements to two prosecutors who lost their re-election bids in the 12 May polls.
Photo by Edjen Oliquino for DAILY TRIBUNE
Less than a week before the House of Representatives approved the proposed ₱6.793 trillion 2026 budget, calls to defund the contentious unprogrammed appropriations (UA) continued to mount as of Tuesday, amid concerns that it might again serve as a conduit for corruption.
Minority lawmakers Chel Diokno and Leila de Lima underscored the need to slash the UA from ₱250 billion to zero under next year’s proposed budget, in a bid to halt the recurrence of alleged massive corruption in infrastructure projects—including flood control—which were charged to the UA in previous years.
In 2023 and 2024, a whopping ₱141 billion in UA was tapped to bankroll flood-control projects, according to Diokno, citing House Committee on Appropriations Chairperson Mikaela Suansing.
“The Filipino people are well aware of the misuse of funds in these flood-control projects. These projects were never scrutinized as programmed line items. They simply appeared in the shadows of the budget process,” Diokno said in his privilege speech.
De Lima, on the other hand, asserted that the UA “has been a source of abuse,” as made evident by the anomalies in the flood control projects.
“So if we could, we should remove it. Otherwise, we must be very restrictive about it and limit it to certain items. But the best case here really is to have it zero,” De Lima told reporters.
Under the 2026 budget, the Marcos administration allocated a staggering 70 percent of the ₱249.9 billion in UA to fund infrastructure projects under the Support for Foreign-Assisted Projects and Strengthening Assistance for Government Infrastructure and Social Programs (SAGIP), with ₱97.3 billion and ₱80.9 billion, respectively.
Unprogrammed appropriations are “standby funds” that can be tapped when the government collects more revenue than expected, or when grants and foreign funds become available. Traditionally, the UA is invoked for emergencies or when infrastructure projects or social aid programs are needed.
However, Diokno argued that the allocation for the UA in the 2026 budget is not intended for contingencies but for big-ticket, pre-planned programs.
This includes ₱50 billion for the Revised AFP Modernization Program, ₱6.7 billion for health emergency allowances, in addition to the ₱97.3 billion in support for foreign-assisted projects, and ₱80.86 billion for SAGIP.
“These are clearly programmed obligations that should have been placed under the regular budget, not hidden in the unprogrammed appropriations. By parking them in the unprogrammed appropriations, we are effectively giving the executive a blank check worth a quarter of a trillion pesos,” Diokno contended.
Furthermore, the Akbayan lawmaker pointed out that this undermines the constitutional power of the purse, which is vested exclusively in Congress.
“By treating unprogrammed appropriations as a broad discretionary fund, and allowing the executive, through the DBM, wide leeway to release funds through a Special Allotment Release Order outside of the Programmed Budget and without legislative scrutiny, we are surrendering the power of the purse to the executive department,” he said.
The DBM releases the UA when several conditions are met, one of which is that the head of the requesting agency must submit a special budget request.
An evaluation team from the DBM assesses the requirements and decides whether to release the UA or not.
Earlier, ACT Teachers Rep. Antonio Tinio said President Marcos also bore responsibility for “approving” the release of the UA, citing a provision in Book VI, Chapter 5, Section 35 of the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order 292), which provides that a lump-sum appropriation for any department must be “made in accordance with a special budget to be approved by the President.”
Bataan Rep. Albert Garcia, the Office of the President’s budget sponsor, contended that Tinio’s assertions were misplaced, saying the UA is not a lump-sum fund solely under Malacañang’s discretion.
The UA under Marcos has ballooned to nearly ₱2 trillion since 2023, according to Tinio, although Garcia said ₱168.2 billion was vetoed in the 2025 budget. Marcos cut ₱194 billion in line items from the ₱6.352-trillion budget, including ₱16.7 billion intended for flood control.
Housing is probably the biggest issue affecting people the world over.
Malacañang on Monday called for a more thorough investigation into the questioned flood control projects in Taguig…
The defense on Monday backed the move by senator-judges to exclude a prosecution witness who testified on the firearms…
