It was only recently that the so-called Unprogrammed Appropriations (UA), which began as standby items awaiting available government funds, were transformed into a conduit for pork-barrel spending, a process that required considerable ingenuity.

It should not have existed at all, as under Article 7, Section 22 of the Constitution, expenditures must have a valid source of financing.

The 1987 Constitution sought to strengthen the congressional “power of the purse” by prohibiting riders and undefined appropriations.

The UA was formalized after 1987 as a “matter of convenience” to avoid the cumbersome special or supplemental appropriations bills required for contingencies.

In the 1989 General Appropriations Act (GAA), congressional deliberations centered on the UA for convenience.

In the early 1990s, the UA was retained by succeeding administrations as modest standby funds, often tied to foreign-assisted projects or revenue windfalls.

Until 2000, the UA provided fiscal flexibility for calamities, debt payments, or project counterparts. Congress occasionally adjusted the amounts, but they remained constrained.

During the Aquino III and Duterte eras, UA amounts varied; for example, in the 2012 budget, Congress reduced a proposed P162 billion.

In its 2014 Supreme Court ruling invalidating the methods that led to the creation of the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), the high tribunal voided the mechanisms for the allocation of lump-sum payments, including savings. Still, it upheld the UA as valid when appropriately triggered.

Before 2022, the UA listed eight purposes, such as the modernization of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Congressional insertions were minimal, focused on genuine contingencies.

The UA ballooned dramatically by the end of 2022 due to congressional insertions, prompting debates over its constitutionality and pork-barrel misuse.

By 2024, insertions totaled over P1.1 trillion; accordingly, the proposed UA was increased from P282 billion in the NEP to P731 billion.

It was extensively used for infrastructure insertions, primarily flood control projects.

In the 2025 GAA, the UA of P532 billion was ratified, with P168 billion vetoed amid scandals.

In the 2026 GAA, the Executive proposed P250 billion in UA, which was trimmed to P243 billion in the bicameral conference committee and further reduced by P151 billion under the President’s veto.

In the past three years under Mr. Marcos, the UA reached P1.45 trillion, with the largest share attributable to foreign-assisted projects. 

During that period, P399 billion worth of projects were placed in the UA. These projects included the subway, the elevated Philippine National Railways line and many other transport projects.

The irony of the perverted budgets was that the President was the one who exposed the anomaly in the flood control projects, yet he allowed the insertions to persist for three years.

In 2023, P280 billion was removed from the budget and replaced with questionable items. 

“He did not reverse it. His Cabinet did not correct it. It feels like sabotage,” according to House senior deputy minority leader Egay Erice.

“President Marcos can’t say he doesn’t know. It’s his duty. It’s his responsibility to know this. But I think the big question is, why would he allow it?” he added.

It was described as the cleanest budget, but then you have the UA, which is illegal, making the 2026 GAA a grotesque monster for political survival.