Ayuda: Politics of dependency

The most revealing aspect of the proposed 2027 national budget is the hundreds of billions the People’s Budget Coalition calls “soft pork” — patronage-driven ayuda programs — the cash assistance programs that have become the defining transaction between the Filipino people and their government.

Unfortunately, these are not real investments in human capital, arguably the Philippines’ most valuable resource. They are simply a means to propagate the Marcos Jr. administration’s politics of dependency.

More importantly, these priorities reveal the architecture of a political system that has learned to survive not by delivering services, but by distributing favors. A hospital built with public funds is a public good. A guarantee letter signed by a congressman for a patient who cannot afford dialysis is a private debt — one that the patient is expected to remember on election day.

Budget watchdogs have warned that the House “tends to bloat these programs that give preferential treatment to beneficiaries through letters that legislators hold” and have repeatedly urged the adoption of patronage-free guidelines for implementation. Sadly, that recommendation has been ignored because that runs counter to the politics behind these ayuda measures.

The 2027 General Appropriations Bill (GAB) is the last full-year spending plan of the Marcos administration before the 2028 elections. Every allocation in it must be read through that lens.

And at the heart of it sits the First District of Ilocos Norte — the congressional district of House Majority Leader Sandro Marcos, the President’s son — which is set to receive P4.37 billion in insertions, the single largest such allocation.

And Malacañang’s defense?!? “An insertion is not inherently bad” and such funds become problematic only when they go “into the politician’s own pocket.”

But this argument assumes the only form of corruption is theft. It ignores the more sophisticated corruption of converting public resources into political capital — of building a district’s loyalty not through sustained, institutionalized public services, but through the visible, attributable, and deeply personal generosity of a single family.

It appears that the Marcos administration does not think elections can be won by working towards a healthier population, a better educated workforce, or a more competitive economy.

Instead, it foolishly assumes that only by making enough Filipinos dependent on its discretionary mercy can it gain (and maintain) enough political clout to endorse the next president in 2028.

So, instead of focusing on good governance, this administration chooses to encourage co-dependency camouflaged in the language of compassion.

Ultimately, the real question for 2028 is not who will be on the ballot. It is what kind of politics will be on the ballot. Judging by the 2027 GAB, the Marcos Jr. administration is fielding a politics of the dole-outs: the guarantee letter, the inserted (unvetted) project, and the grateful voter.

Marcos Jr.’s anointed successor will inherit a government that has learned to convert compassion into control, and assistance into allegiance. Which leaves our nation deliberately weakened by substituting discretionary ayuda for universal health care, political patronage for institutionalized social protection, and the goodwill of congressmen for the dignity of citizens.

What is certain is that the Marcos Jr. administration will be remembered for cultivating a political culture where the suffering of ordinary Filipinos is not a problem to be solved but an opportunity to be exploited.

If we do not resist that political culture, every budget will be an election budget. And every election will be a referendum on who has been most generous with money that was supposed to be spent on us to begin with.