The ghost of the 2025 budget, branded by many as the most corrupt ever, haunted the first day of deliberations on the 2026 General Appropriations Act after a legislator asked for a signed small committee report.
The House of Representatives kicked off the deliberations on the proposed P6.793-trillion national budget for next year with a heated exchange among lawmakers concerning a report by the so-called small committee, which was allegedly responsible for previous “budget insertions.”
Navotas Rep. Toby Tiangco began his interpellation not with questions but with a demand for Appropriations Committee chairperson Nueva Ecija Rep. Mikaela Suansing to furnish members of the House with a signed report of the small committee for the 2025 General Appropriations Bill, on which this year’s budget is based.
Tiangco claimed that last year’s small committee made “individual amendments” to the 2025 GAB, led by then appropriations chairperson Elizaldy Co and three others.
Responding to Tiangco, Suansing said she would put his request “under consideration” and “will let you know if it’s possible,” leading to the Navotas solon erupting, saying that what he was asking for should not be treated as a mere request because it was of “public record.”
Tiangco said that producing the document should not be subject to approval, citing House rules.
“Madam chair, allow me to read this. Section 3 [of our House rules provides] that efficient and effective access to the dissemination of appropriate and accurate information is imperative in lawmaking. So why should it be taken into consideration?” Tiangco asked Suansing.
The panel chairperson, in response, countered that the document was under the purview of the previous Congress, thus she had no jurisdiction over it, considering they had already crossed over to a new Congress.
Tiangco, however, did not buy Suansing’s excuse, dismissing it as “unacceptable.” He pointed out that the budget document must be readily available, given that the current committee secretariat is composed of the same persons responsible for the administrative work in the previous Congress.
Should be in archives
Furthermore, he contended, the report should have been placed in the archives.
“There are so many violations, Madam Chair. There’s no record; it wasn’t provided. Now, it’s not readily available,” Tiangco said.
Suansing explained that the report in question was already incorporated into the report of the appropriations panel—the small committee’s “mother committee.”
“So the small committee is subsumed within the committee on appropriations and it is the Committee on Appropriations that is required to submit the committee report. So there’s no other committee report that needs to be furnished by the committee on appropriations apart from the HGAB itself,” she said.
But Tiangco pushed back, contending that the small committee should have an independent and distinct report aside from the panel’s overall report.