A week after the national budget for 2026 was signed by Ferdinand Marcos Jr., budget watchdogs said the spending plan remains laden with pork.

On Friday, Prof. Marivic Raquiza of Social Watch Philippines said the approved budget still carries P150.9 billion in unprogrammed appropriations (UA). According to the group, the ballooning UA over the years has not been subjected to sufficient public scrutiny, making it vulnerable to alleged pork barrel insertions and one of the roots of the flood control scandal.

“Yung isang katangian ng unprogrammed appropriations, halos hindi na ito dini-discuss sa budget hearing sa Kongreso. So halos walang public scrutiny ito unlike yung budget ng mga iba't iba't ahensya. Kaya dito nakikita na magandang ilagay yung pork kasi halos walang public scrutiny ang unprogrammed appropriations,” Raquiza said.

“Kaya talagang mukhang ang source ng pork barrel funds ng flood control scandal nanggaling sa unprogrammed appropriations,” she added.

Raquiza further noted that even within programmed funds, there is an estimated P319 billion in what the group described as “assured pork” embedded in agency budgets. Among those cited was the Department of Public Works and Highways, which received an P81.94-billion increase for the Basic Infrastructure Program (BIP) and the Sustainable Infrastructure Projects Alleviating Gaps (SIPAG) program under the Convergence and Special Support Program.

According to Raquiza, these programs remain controversial due to the alleged duplication of projects already covered by existing DPWH initiatives. She said Social Watch Philippines raised these concerns during the Senate Finance Committee hearing, but the allocations were retained in the final version of the budget.

“Nag present Tayo sa Senate Finance Committee hearing at pinatnaggal namin ito. At that time mukhang open na open ‘yung senate,” Raquiza said.

“Kaya nadismaya Tayo na lumabas doon sa Bicam at ina–pprove ng Presidente ay andon Yung pork na P81.9 billion,” she added.

The group also flagged allocations in the Department of Agriculture, noting claims by other budget critics that alleged anomalies in flood control projects may now be shifting toward farm-to-market road projects under the department.

Scrutiny extended to a P10-billion presidential assistance fund for farmers and fisherfolk lodged under the DA. Social Watch Philippines argued that the allocation duplicates existing subsidy and assistance programs already embedded within the department’s budget.

“Bakit may kailangan na presidential assistance? Mayroon naman tayong DA project na yung mga nandun sa project under the presidential assistance ay nagdu-duplicate din. Pero ang ipig lang sabihin nito, ito yung pork barrel ni Presidente para sa mga magsasaka at mga nasa sa rural areas,” Raquiza said.

The group added that 43 percent, or about P138 billion, of the P319 billion in “assured pork” falls under what it called “trapo pork,” or public funds distributed through political intermediation. These include the Department of Health’s Medical Assistance to Indigent and Financially Incapacitated Patients (MAIFIP) worth P51.58 billion; the Department of Labor and Employment’s Tulong Pangkabuhayan sa Ating Disadvantaged Workers (TUPAD); and the Department of Social Welfare and Development’s Assistance to Individuals in Crisis Situations, totaling P63.9 billion.

Social Watch Philippines noted that the combined allocations exceed the P63.4 billion proposed for similar assistance programs under the National Expenditure Program.

Raquiza said access to these assistance funds often requires guarantee letters, forcing Filipinos to “beg, kneel” before politicians such as mayors, senators and members of Congress to obtain aid.

Beyond budget scrutiny, the group also renewed its call for stronger “anti-epal” provisions to curb political interference in the identification of beneficiaries and the distribution of assistance.

“We also pushed for stronger 'anti-epal' provislons to prevent trapos from Interfering with the identification of beneficlaries, down to distribution of ayuda. The current anti-epal provision is weak as it only prevents trapos from the distribution process,” Social Watch Philippines said.