President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s aggressive push to slash the cost of government infrastructure projects by as much as 50 percent is being attributed to a grand coverup plan.

Members of the minority in the House of Representatives asserted that the price cuts will fall short of the effort to curb corruption unless the unholy alliance of Malacañang and Congress ends the “pork barrel system.”

By enforcing the discounts, the lump sums generated by pet projects inserted into the annual national budget will be maintained.

In a 2013 ruling, the Supreme Court declared the pork barrel system, and any similar scheme in the national budget, unconstitutional.

Marcos’ directive requires all agencies putting up infrastructure to adopt the pricing model of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), which he ordered to slash input costs by half.

The move was billed as part of an ambitious effort to purge the corruption in scandal-ridden projects.

ACT Teachers Rep. Antonio Tinio, however, contended that adjusting costs without systemic reform, such as scrapping the pork barrel that allows Malacañang and members of Congress to control, nominate, and profit from infrastructure projects, is nothing more than “wishful thinking.”

“Even with lower prices, if the executive, congressmen, and senators still have control over the projects, kickbacks, ghost projects and substandard construction will persist. Pricing is not the problem, the pork barrel system is,” Tinio said.

Marcos has broadened the coverage of the price slash to include all agencies involved in the building of structures, including the Departments of Education, Agriculture, Health, Interior and Local Government, and Transportation, the National Irrigation Administration and other relevant agencies.

DPWH pricing model

The pricing model aims to reduce construction materials costs by up to 50 percent, supposedly to ensure that public funds are not misused.

The President’s marching orders followed findings by the DPWH that construction materials, such as asphalt, steel bars, and cement, were overpriced by as much as 50 percent.

Marcos posited that by cutting the cost of materials by half, the government could save a substantial amount, ranging from P30 to P45 billion in capital outlay.

Echoing Tinio’s frustration, Kabataan Rep. Renee Co maintained that without significant structural reforms in the budget allocation system, corruption will thrive, allowing lawmakers to receive kickbacks by nominating projects in their districts and rigging the bidding process.

Gabriela Rep. Sarah Elago, for her part, asserted that it was high time the administration dismantled congressional allocations for infrastructure projects, saying it was the only solution to combat the kickback scheme and halt the recurring substandard constructions.

“We’ve seen this before — cosmetic reforms that look good on paper but fail to address the core issue,” she asserted. “Pricing reforms without structural change are just band-aid solutions.”

The Makabayan bloc lawmakers, joined by their minority colleagues, have vigorously called for the abolition of unprogrammed appropriations (UA) in the national budget which are believed to be a conduit for corruption.

The contentious UA had swelled to unprecedented levels since 2023, the first full year of Marcos in office, reaching almost P2 trillion, although P168.2 billion was reportedly vetoed in the 2025 General Appropriations Act.

Despite mounting opposition, the House passed the 2026 budget, retaining a staggering P243 billion in UA, with the lion’s share going to bankroll infrastructure projects to be co-financed by foreign governments.

The UA are standby funds that can be tapped only when the government collects more revenue than expected or when grants and foreign funds are available. Typically, the UA is invoked in emergencies or when infrastructure projects, social aid programs, and other initiatives are required.

House committee on appropriations chairperson Mikaela Suansing had allayed fears that the UA will be a vehicle for corruption, assuring that the projects and programs charged to the UA will only be funded if the government has extra revenue in 2026.