A House lawmaker leading budget discussions on Monday sought to allay public concerns that the proposed 2026 national budget could be plagued by corruption in infrastructure projects, similar to issues seen in recent spending plans.

House Committee on Appropriations Chair Mikaela Suansing assured that all infrastructure projects have been excluded from next year’s budget, except for the construction of public school buildings.

The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), which has been under scrutiny for allegations of massive corruption, has taken over school constructions from the Department of Education.

The funding for public school buildings will be sourced from the Strengthening Assistance for Social Programs (SAP), formerly SAGIP, lodged under the P243-billion unprogrammed appropriations (UA).

“[Here’s a] very, very important point: There are no more flood control projects, no more roads or bridges that can be pulled from Strengthening Assistance for Social Programs,” Suansing said in a briefing.

“So, technically, there’s still infrastructure, but it’s limited to school buildings,” she added.

Suansing’s remarks followed the approval of House Bill 4058, or the 2026 General Appropriations Bill, which retained the funding for the contentious UA despite the mounting clamor to scrap it.

Opposition lawmakers have vigorously petitioned to remove the UA from the 2026 budget, calling it a conduit for corruption, as evident by the botched flood control projects.

In 2023 and 2024 alone, a whopping P141 billion was reportedly charged to the UA to finance flood control projects nationwide.

Despite concerns of alleged mismanagement, the House still approved the retention of the UA, deemed as standby funds, for 2026. According to Suansing, the funds were not included in the P6.793-trillion proposed 2026 budget that was approved by the House.

“If you want to look at it through a different lens, there is currently no funding for unprogrammed appropriations. No part of our tax revenue of P6.793 trillion goes to unprogrammed appropriations in the current form of the General Appropriations Bill,” she pointed out.

Nonetheless, the UA will eventually be released if the government has excess revenues or extra funding from foreign loans or grants.

Typically, the UA is tapped for emergencies or when infrastructure projects, social aid programs, among other things, are required.

Under the 2026 proposed budget, a big chunk of the UA will go to FAP and SAGIP, at P97.3 billion and P80.9 billion, respectively. Meanwhile, P50 billion will be earmarked for the Revised AFP Modernization Program, and P6.7 billion for health emergency allowances.

But following the clamor to remove infrastructure from the UA, P35 billion was slashed from SAGIP, effectively turning it into a SAP.

“We are now disallowing infrastructure from being disbursed from what was previously known as SAGIP,” Suansing said.

As part of the effort to avoid the recurrence of corruption in infrastructure, the House also adopted the Palace’s recommendation to trim the proposed budget of the scandal-plagued DPWH.

Under the House-approved budget, P255.5 billion was cut from the DPWH allocation, leaving it with only P625.8 billion from the original P881.3 billion.

Almost 80 percent of the slashed amount was realigned to education, health, and agriculture, which received P56.6 billion, P90.7 billion, and P53.7 billion, respectively.

The retention of the UA in the GAB by the House is likely to cause conflict with the Senate — which is adamant about scrapping the so-called standby funds — during the bicameral conference committee.

Suansing, who will head the House contingent to the bicam, pointed out that they are willing to compromise with the Senate, but insisted that some programs under the UA are necessary.

Aside from FAPs, the government needs to maintain budgetary support for GOCCs due to possible commitment penalties.

“Perhaps, one thing that they can look at, instead of totally removing the AFP modernization, we can talk about reducing the P50 billion. Rather than zeroing out the particular items under the UA, one option is to explore reducing it,” she said.

Further, Suansing said that Malacañang and the Department of Budget and Management have been “very vocal about” maintaining particular projects in the UA.

Minority lawmakers have posited that aside from Congress, Malacañang and the DBM also share the blame for the flood control anomalies for “allowing” the release of the UA to finance the programs in question.