A budget watchdog has flagged about P970 billion in the proposed P7.2-trillion 2027 national budget, warning that some allocations could be vulnerable to political patronage and misuse.

The People’s Budget Coalition (PBC) said Friday that the amount it considers vulnerable has increased as what it described as “hard pork” projects spread beyond traditional infrastructure allocations and into other government agencies.

PBC technical analyst Hanz Gonzales said the group classified projects under the Department of Public Works and Highways as “hard pork.” The agency has a proposed P643.95-billion allocation under the 2027 National Expenditure Program.

The PBC also flagged about P140 billion in assistance or “ayuda” programs lodged under agencies including the Department of Social Welfare and Development, Department of Labor and Employment and Department of Health.

Another P38 billion collectively proposed for the Office of the President, Office of the Vice President and Congress was also questioned by the coalition.

Gonzales urged the public to closely scrutinize the proposed budget, particularly as the country approaches the 2028 elections.

“We know that the pressure is up for politicians to reward their bulwarks to prepare for the 2028 elections…so we want to flag to the media, flag to the public that we need to be even more vigilant considering that we are approaching the end of this administration,” he said.

The PBC’s characterization of the allocations as vulnerable to abuse represents the coalition’s assessment. The proposed P7.2-trillion budget is still undergoing congressional deliberations and has not yet been enacted into law.

Fiscal path questioned

The coalition also raised concerns over the government’s fiscal position, saying several economic and debt targets have not been met.

According to PBC’s analysis, economic growth has fallen short of previously established targets, while government debt as a share of gross domestic product has remained higher than earlier fiscal goals.

The coalition also criticized what it described as a pattern of revising economic targets when the original goals are missed.

“We also noticed another pattern from our economic managers that every time that they set a target and that target is missed…it’s not a policy or a strategy of the government that they change, rather it's the targets themselves,” Gonzales said.

PBC further argued that despite the continued expansion of the national budget, the government has less fiscal room for discretionary spending because of mandatory expenditures and other obligations.

According to the coalition, only P36 out of every P100 in the proposed budget would be available for what it considers pressing spending priorities, down from P40 in 2022.

The group also raised concerns over government spending relative to GDP, comparing Philippine expenditure levels with international benchmarks.

The Department of Budget and Management, however, has said the proposed 2027 budget was prepared amid limited fiscal space, with more than P11 trillion in agency proposals pared down to P7.2 trillion. DBM said mandatory requirements and existing fiscal obligations account for a significant portion of the spending plan.

PBC says civil society sidelined

The PBC also criticized what it described as limited civil society participation during House deliberations on the proposed budget.

PBC co-convenor Gybel Agregado said questions submitted by civil society organizations initially received little response from the House Committee on Appropriations.

She said the Congressional Policy and Budget Research Department instead coordinated with the groups before their questions were formally recognized during the second week of budget deliberations.

Agregado said House Appropriations Committee chair Rep. Mikaela Suansing later apologized to civil society organizations and assured them of greater opportunities to participate.

“During this time, we felt some hope that our questions, the participation of CSOs could be improved,” Agregado said. “In fact, it did for quite a bit.”

However, she said the coalition remained dissatisfied with the subsequent People’s Budget Review, claiming representatives of civil society organizations were given only three minutes to speak.

“On this day, we did not feel that their sought CSO participation was genuine or real, because during this hearing…there were questions from civil society where their answers were unclear,” she said.

Agregado said the coalition also experienced difficulties obtaining information on the schedule of plenary budget deliberations.

She contrasted the experience with the ongoing Senate proceedings, which she described as more “open and genuine.”

DAILY TRIBUNE has sought Suansing’s comment on the coalition’s claims.