A campaign to defund the notorious unprogrammed appropriations (UA) in the yearly budget, which is considered the repository of the resurrected pork barrel, is gaining traction with its proponents in the House of Representatives saying the fight is far from over despite the plenary’s rejection of the proposal.

The House of Representatives rejected the amendment of Akbayan Representative Chel Diokno on 10 October to reduce the P243-billion unprogrammed funds to zero. Still, various lawmakers have seen the logic in the crusade to do away with the discretionary funds in the budget.

Congress uses the UA to insert pet projects into the budget in an oblique way, as key items under a particular agency, such as official development assistance-funded projects, are moved to the UA to be funded when there is increase in revenues or there are new loans.

The campaign to scrap the UA from the proposed 2026 national budget is gaining more support, with Senate President Pro Tempore Panfilo Lacson throwing his support behind the move, following Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto III.

“Our agreement was that there will be no unprogrammed appropriations in the 2026 budget, except those that support necessary foreign-assisted projects,” Lacson said.

“Funds intended for other purposes under the unprogrammed appropriations will be removed,” he added.

Lacson’s stand reinforces the Senate’s unified position amid growing concerns over the potential misuse of the UA, which has been criticized for being “pork-like” due to its flexible allocation mechanism.

House Appropriations Chairperson Mikaela Suansing has defended the unprogrammed funds, arguing that the government needs contingent funding, especially for commitments tied to foreign-assisted initiatives.

However, Lacson warned that the issue could become a sticking point during the upcoming bicameral committee conference between the Senate and the House.

He stressed that insisting on retaining the unprogrammed appropriations in its current form could face not just Senate opposition but a public backlash.

Lacson and his staff uncovered questionable flood control projects financed through unprogrammed funds, raising alarm over the lack of transparency and proper vetting of such allocations.

“We may have to confront this issue in the bicam. If I become a member of the Senate contingent to the bicam, I will add my voice to that of Senator Gatchalian, along with the voices of Filipinos who are outraged over corruption,” he said.

Beyond the issue of the UA, Lacson renewed his call for lawmakers to exercise self-restraint when proposing amendments to the national budget.

Institutional amendments only

The priority should be institutional over individual amendments, particularly for infrastructure projects that often bypass proper consultation with local government units.

In a press briefing over the weekend, Sotto said he and Gatchalian will ensure that no unprogrammed funds remain when the proposed 2026 national budget goes to its final reading.

“We will put this in programmed allocations,” said Sotto. “So that it’s clear and transparent. We can avoid the act of budget realignment once the budget is already passed.”

Sotto also revealed that, following a directive from President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the national budget bill will no longer be certified as an urgent measure.

Such certification allows Congress to bypass the constitutional three-day rule and pass a bill on second and third reading on the same day.

“The President himself said that. He said he no longer wants a shortcut to the three-day rule. So it’s like that. I’m sure it will also be applied in the Senate,” Sotto said.

Parallel budget plan

Before the decision was made on Friday, Diokno had raised his concern about the UA on 7 October, saying that what was once a standby fund had ballooned to create a “parallel budget system.”

“When we examine the details of the 2026 National Expenditure Program (NEP), we see allocations that are not contingencies at all but big-ticket, pre-planned programs. This includes the P80.86 billion for the Strengthening Assistance for Government Infrastructure and Social Programs; P97.3 billion for foreign-assisted projects; P50 billion for the Revised AFP Modernization Program; and P6.7 billion for health emergency allowances, among others,” Diokno said on Wednesday.

According to Diokno, the amendment to remove the UA would not be necessary if the people in charge had been more transparent with the previous budget and had not included pork-prone items in the UA.

“We will not come to this if those in charge of the previous budgets had not reallocated programmed items, especially those for education, health, and social protection,” Diokno said. “If they had not placed pork-prone items in the UA, and if they had required real-time transparency down to the Special Allotment Release Order level with open-data reporting accessible to the public. Had those measures been undertaken in the previous budgets, zeroing out the UA would not have been necessary.”

House members highlighted that for the past three years the UA had been a source of corruption.

“This has been a source of corruption and controversy for the past three years. We saw how it grew and how it seems like the power of the purse has been transferred to DBM. Because with unprogrammed appropriations, the DBM has large power in terms of the approval and release of the funds under this,” Rep. Percy Cendaña said.

The controversial flood control projects are one of the fruits of the UA. House appropriations committee chairperson Suansing, during a plenary deliberation on 23 September, disclosed that the DBM had released P141 billion for the projects, with P34 billion from 2023 and P107 billion in 2024.

Necessary budget component?

Other House members dismissed Diokno’s proposal, saying removing the UA from the 2026 national budget was not possible.

House Committee on Appropriations vice chairperson Jose Alvarez explained that the government needs standby funds for foreign-assisted projects, as well as backup funds for times of disasters and emergencies.

Additionally, he said the UA should now only be tapped by the Palace in times of need.

“The unprogrammed funds, on the other hand, are only funded when there is extra funding. The important thing is no senator, no congressman can access those. That is exclusively for the Palace’s use for foreign-funded projects and for calamities,” Alvarez said.

House Deputy Speaker and Antipolo City 1st District Rep. Ronaldo Puno explained that the UA was not necessarily bad if used correctly, and eliminating it would be inefficient.

“If you don’t include unprogrammed funds like that, you won’t have anywhere to put additional collections. So you’ll put it in savings, in government budgeting, which isn’t efficient because it’s necessary for the government to earn a specific amount within their expenditure program guidelines. Otherwise, the economy will slow down, leading to many other negative effects. Unprogrammed funds are not bad, if used correctly,” Puno explained in Filipino.

Diokno in a social media post said that a third reading will still happen on Monday and that the battle over the UA was far from over.

“We are disappointed, and if our government is truly serious about showing the Filipino people that we do not want corruption, then the unprogrammed appropriations should be zeroed out. We are only in the second reading; on Monday, there will be a third reading and another round of voting regarding the enactment of the General Appropriations Bill,” Diokno said.