The railroading of the Bicameral Conference Committee (Bicam) report at the House of Representatives only heightened public suspicions of another perversion of the 2026 national budget despite the first livestreamed proceedings of the controversial body.

The approval came in less than a minute, while questions and objections were preempted by turning off the microphones.

Caloocan Rep. Edgar Erice, the House senior deputy minority leader, said there wasn’t even a quorum or a majority of the members on the House floor when the General Appropriations Bill (GAB) was ratified.

“That’s why someone should have called for a roll call, but what they did took less than a minute. They just said the session was open, then moved to take up the ratification, approved it, and immediately adjourned. So it was finished in less than a minute,” Erice noted.

The proposed spending plan for 2026, while more “orderly,” still has huge provisions for the pork barrel through the Unprogrammed Appropriations (UA), which remained at a gargantuan P243 billion.

Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, in an opinion on the Supreme Court ruling voiding the transfer of P89.9 billion from PhilHealth to the National Treasury, said that any form of unprogrammed funds is unconstitutional under Section 22, Article VII of the Constitution, because if there is an object of expenditure, there must be a source of financing.

The UA is like a shadow budget with no financing, subject to the executive branch’s discretion.

Allocations for the UA can only be triggered through savings, new loans, or new taxes.

The UA has mutated into a conduit for pork barrel by taking in regular budget items, including those under the flagship infrastructure program, to make room for pork barrel projects in the budget bill.

Erice said items that should be mandatory, such as the tax share of local governments, are included in the UA.

“Why put it under the UA? That means that if there’s no funding source, the national government will be short-changing the local governments,” Erice pointed out.

Most of the infrastructure items, such as flood control projects that constitute hard pork, were replaced by soft pork, mainly social aid programs.

The House oppositionist said the Assistance to Individuals in Crisis Situations program of the Department of Social Welfare and Development was more than doubled, and so was the Tulong Panghanapbuhay sa Ating Disadvantaged/Displaced Workers of the Department of Labor and Employment.

Another DSWD program, the Medical Assistance for Indigent and Financially Incapacitated Patients, still uses guarantee letters from members of Congress.

The richly funded programs perpetuate patronage and dependency. The vile philosophy that goes along with the politician-dispensed aid is “we gave you this, so vote for us.”

“What makes a legislator better suited to evaluate a constituent’s medical needs? Why should a legislator decide who needs what?” Erice asked.

Since the budget was not properly deliberated on, the minority bloc raised the possibility of bringing the issue to the Supreme Court.

“Once the President signs the budget, it becomes justiciable, and there will be grounds to file a petition. Until it’s signed, you can’t bring it to court,” Erice pointed out.

Despite the facade of reforms, the 2026 national budget tells the same old story: Crooks still had their way.