Unprogrammed allocations (UA) are not necessary, contrary to the claims of some members of the House of Representatives. Budget watchdogs have said that projects under the UA can be included in the regular appropriations of agencies, making the zero-UA movement a practical step.

A review of the proposed 2026 budget revealed the inclusion of P243 billion in UA. The ballooning UA since 2022 indicates an attempt by the Executive, particularly the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), to hijack Congress’ power of the purse.

Critics argue that the DBM’s gatekeeping role indirectly empowers the Executive to prioritize allies’ projects. This is because the DBM, through the UA, can appropriate funds to agencies even for previous budget laws.

Davao City Rep. Sid Ungab bared the recent release of additional funds from the UA of the 2024 and 2025 national budgets to the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).

This year, Ungab said the DBM released P58.545 billion from the UA to the DPWH as of 31 August, increasing the DPWH’s total allocation from P1.088 trillion under the 2025 General Appropriations Act (GAA) to P1.148 trillion.

UA has ballooned significantly since 2022, driven by congressional insertions that exceed the Executive’s National Expenditure Program (NEP) proposals.

The trend began with the late President Rodrigo Duterte’s final budget and accelerated under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. Congress used the bicameral conference committee to add hundreds of billions for “priority” items like infrastructure and social aid, often reallocating funds to accommodate legislators’ pet projects.

The increases have totaled over P1 trillion from 2023 to 2025, comprising about 13 to 15 percent of the national budget annually — far above the 5 percent historical average increase from 2010 to 2022.

UA effectively resurrects the pork barrel system by allowing lawmakers and the Executive to insert or realign funds for pet projects during bicameral negotiations, bypassing strict congressional limits on increasing the president’s budget proposal.

For instance, essential programs like the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) and infrastructure have been shifted to UA in the 2024 budget to free up programmed funds for patronage items such as the Ayuda para sa Kapos ang Kita Program (AKAP), which critics call a tool for electioneering.

In that year’s national budget, essential items were bumped into the UA to insert legislators’ pet projects, primarily flood control works, in the programmed appropriations.

Thus, pork projects received priority while official development assistance-funded infrastructure, such as the subway project, had to wait for additional revenues.

An estimated 17.4 percent of programmed appropriations from 2023 to 2025 have been diverted to “soft projects” hidden in UA, prioritizing political gains over public needs such as education, health, and agriculture.

The UA has also become a pork wallet, used for fiscal maneuvering.

To circumvent constitutional limits on the national budget and stay within the ceiling proposed by the president, Congress shifts programmed items, such as foreign-assisted projects or military modernization, to UA, creating space for patronage.

Advocates of zero UA suggest that instead of standby allocations, the government can propose a supplemental budget if it needs additional funds.

Removing UA disables the conspiracy between the Executive and Legislative branches in resurrecting the illegal pork barrel system.