A House leader on Wednesday slammed President Marcos Jr. and his Cabinet for “allowing” members of Congress to gut flagship projects to unprogrammed appropriations (UA) to make room for lawmakers’ “insertions,” asserting that their silence suggests complicity. 

House Senior Deputy Minority Leader Edgar Erice made the scathing remarks as he set to file tomorrow, Thursday, a petition that would challenge the constitutionality of the contentious UA before the Supreme Court.

Erice said the UA—branded by budget watchdogs as a conduit for corruption—is where lawmakers relocated the administration’s priority projects from the programmed funds to accommodate their pet projects, particularly the fraudulent flood control projects, solar street lights, and some sort of infrastructure programs, where kickbacks easily flourish. 

This was made evident in the 2023, 2024, and 2025 General Appropriations Act, where congressional insertions and diversions reached as high as P1.45 trillion, according to Erice. 

“In 2023, P280 billion was removed from his budget, and was replaced with nonsense projects [of lawmakers]. He didn't react; his Cabinet didn't didn’t say a word either, as if they were complicit,” Erice said in an interview with ANC’s Headstart.

“P1.45 trillion [of insertions] in three years is unprecedented. That means you changed the president's budget [and] turned it into a congressional budget. Worse is, the executive department allowed it,” he added. 

The opposition lawmaker narrated that the same pattern followed in 2024 and 2025, with projects worth over P500 billion and P473 billion, respectively, being bumped off to UA instead of being outlined in the programmed funds with definite funding sources.

Unlike the programmed funds, the UA serves as a standby fund outside the annual budget, and the projects listed there would only be funded when there are excess revenue collections, savings, or additional borrowing from foreign governments.

It is the executive branch that releases the funds to bankroll these programs, especially if there are emergencies or when infrastructure projects, social aid programs, and other initiatives are required.

Flagship programs that were hit the hardest due to a lack of funding or excess revenues were the Metro Manila Subway and the expansion of the Philippine National Railways, also known as the North-South Commuter Railway.  These projects were supposed to be co-funded with foreign governments.

However, Erice alleged that P399 billion worth of the Philippines’ equity originally allocated to fund these railway projects in 2024 and 2025 was transferred to UA to clear space for flood control projects and other pet projects of lawmakers. 

“So, why did this happen? He cannot say he didn't know. It's his duty, it's his responsibility to know this,” Erice stressed, referring to the president. 

He lamented that the funds in question could have been used to address classroom backlogs, numbering at 165,000 as of 2025. According to the Education Secretary Sonny Angara, it could take 55 years, or more than half a century, to resolve this, given the limited fiscal space. 

As a result, the nearly five-year delay of the subway and the PNR, supposedly completed before 2030, will cost the government an additional P260 billion in expenses to cover commitment fees, labor, and materials, Erice said.

P92.B veto ain't engouh

Following mounting backlash across all sectors, Marcos vetoed P92.5 billion, or about 62 percent of the P243 billion in UA from the 2026 GAA.

The amount of vetoed budget constitutes seven of the 10 projects listed in the UA. Only three projects were retained, namely, support for foreign-assisted projects (P97 billion), military modernization (P50 billion), and risk management related to private-public partnership projects (P3.6 billion).

However, Erice argued that the veto, while substantial, leaves a huge chunk of roughly P151 billion in “unconstitutional” funds intact. 

During the budget deliberations for the 2026 budget in the House in October, it was revealed that the Office of the President allegedly released P214.4 billion in UA to DPWH to fund 3,700 infrastructure projects, such as flood control, roads, bridges, and multi-purpose buildings in 2023 and 2024. 

ACT Teachers Rep. Antonio Tinio, another member of the minority, earlier said that Marcos—despite exposing the alleged corruption scheme in the flood control projects—shares the blame for the anomalies for “approving” the release of UA. 

He cited a provision in Book VI, Chapter 5, Section 35 of the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order 292), providing that a lump-sum appropriation for any department must be “made in accordance with a special budget to be approved by the President.”

However, the OP’s budget sponsor, Bataan Rep. Albert Garcia, countered that the UA is not a lump-sum fund under Malacañang’s sole discretion; hence, it has nothing to do with the president. 

Since 2023, the first full year of Marcos in office, the UA has ballooned to unprecedented levels, reaching nearly P2 trillion, according to Tinio. 

Though Garcia claimed that P168.2 billion was vetoed in the 2025 budget. Recall that Marcos vetoed P194 billion in line items from the P6.352 trillion budget for 2025, P16.7 billion of which was intended for flood control projects.

The 2025 GAA  has been derided as the “most corrupt” budget ever enacted for allegedly featuring bloated UA and discretionary funds while allocations and subsidies to the Department of Education and state health insurer PhilHealth, respectively, suffered deep cuts. 

Opposition lawmakers posit that the Department of Budget and Management is equally culpable for the budget blunders, suggesting that the agency may be complicit with the DPWH, which has been embroiled in allegations of corruption and complicity with members of Congress, Cabinet officials, and private contractors involving the multibillion-peso flood control projects.

This resulted in the resignation of then DBM secretary Amenah Pangandaman, and DPWH secretary Manuel Bonoan, and several Cabinet members and officials of Malacanang.

Similar to the 2026 budget, the legality of the 2025 2025 GAA is still being contested before the SC, though the high court has yet to rule on the matter.