Makabayan: Recall budget, dismantle lump sums

Lawmakers from the Makabayan bloc formally filed a resolution at the House of Representatives seeking to recall the its version of the fiscal blueprint, expressing that the measure had contained provisions previously flagged as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

The bloc said that there were “abusive budget practices” that remained in the proposed spending bill, most of which were observed in the budgets for 2024 and 2025.

A particular inclusion that the group challenged was the inclusion of lump sums, specifically when it comes to unprogrammed appropriations that did not provide any breakdown on how the executive intended on spending the amounts.

“The Supreme Court has ruled categorically that singular lump sums tapped for multiple purposes—leaving the Executive free to determine the actual amounts and purposes of an appropriation after the law is enacted—are prohibited,” Makabayan said.

“Yet, the 2027 [General Appropriations Bill] approved by the House is riddled with exactly such appropriations,” it added.

Aside from unprogrammed funds, Makabayan also questioned the P58.53 billion that was earmarked for the Local Government Support Fund, an allocation they said was a “discretionary pork barrel allocation for local chief executives.”

Makabayan pointed out that the funding had consistently ballooned in recent years, with proposed allocations for initiatives like the Financial Assistance to Local Government Units reaching P41.58 billion as compared to the P18.9 billion it had in 2025.

The bloc likened the fund to the Priority Development Assistance Fund and the Strengthening Assistance for Government Infrastructure and Social Programs (SAGIP) fund, both of which were deemed unconstitutional by the high court.

“It can be tapped without limit as to the number and amount of infrastructure projects of governors and mayors—a textbook prohibited lump sum that has no place in a constitutional budget,” it said.

Makabayan further raised concerns on the supposed failure of the Budget Amendments Review Subcommittee (BARSc) to accomplish an itemized report with respect to the amendments it made to the executive’s budget proposal.

The bloc echoed concerns from the Senate regarding the infrastructure projects that were included in the budget but lacked line-item documentation and feasibility validations.

It stressed that BARSc had the “public left completely in the dark” with respect to how public funds were reallocated.

“An amendment process without an itemized public report is not deliberation—it is concealment,” Makabayan said.

Makabayan maintained that its decision to vote against the House-version of the budget was in observance of the many insertions that were made to the bill while also implementing major cuts to sectors like health, education, agriculture, and government employee benefits.

It argued that the lower chamber had to “correct its own mistakes” rather than relying on the executive’s argument that the high court’s ruling was a judicial overreach.

“The people deserve a national budget that is line-itemized, transparent, and faithful to the Constitution, not a pork-laden document assembled in backrooms and shielded from public view,” the group said.