The long-awaited 2026 National Budget sailed through the House of Representatives in record time on Monday — less than a minute from start to finish. A chorus of “ayes” echoed through the chamber like applause, yet behind the fanfare, some lawmakers could be heard calling the attention of the chair, signaling an unease over the lightning-fast ratification.
The P6.793-trillion budget for fiscal year 2026, ratified immediately after the bicameral report was presented, drew criticism from several members who said the speed of the process left little room for scrutiny.
House Deputy Minority Leader Leila de Lima, representing the Mamamayang Liberal (ML) Party-list, voiced her surprise and disappointment on social media. “Anong pasabog ito? Bakit ura-urada ang pag-ratify sa Bicam Committee Report? Nakakadismaya!” she wrote. (“What bombshell is this? Why was the ratification quickened? What a disappointment”).
De Lima said that if given more time on the floor, she would have explained her “no” vote, pointing out that the historic livestream of the bicameral hearings did not equate to real transparency.
“Transparency becomes hollow when it merely broadcasts the return of opaque, discretionary, and patronage-driven spending. Partial or selective transparency, when used to fool rather than enlighten, is even more dangerous than pure opaqueness,” De Lima said.
Among her concerns were the continued presence of unprogrammed appropriations (UA), which the bicameral committee restored to P243 billion, ignoring its reduction to P174.5 billion by the Senate.
“UAs should not be merely reduced — they should be removed entirely. They have no place in the GAA,” she said.
De Lima also highlighted the so-called “soft porwk” items, which saw increases over the House’s original budget. Programs such as Assistance to Individuals in Crisis Situations (AICS), Medical Assistance to Indigent and Financially Incapacitated Patients (MAIFIP), and Tulong Panghanapbuhay sa Ating Disadvantaged/Displaced Worker (Tupad), for instance, were all allocated tens of billions of pesos each.
She also questioned the increase in confidential and intelligence funds, noting that some agencies without primary security mandates, such as the DENR, DSWD, BIR, and the Bureau of Customs, received allocations. “Bakit binibigyan ng ‘secret funds’ ang mga ahensiyang ito?” she asked. (“Why were these agencies given secret funds?”)
Other dissenting voices included Davao Third District Rep. Isidro Ungab, who opposed cuts in Foreign-Assisted Projects. The DPWH’s FAPs were slashed from P70 billion to P17.7 billion, affecting major transport projects such as the Metro Manila Subway and North–South Commuter Railway.
Kabataan Rep. Renee Co expressed frustration over the lack of consultation time, having received the bicameral report only hours before the session.
“Livestreaming is theater, and transparency is a gimmick. The public is still left in the dark,” she said. Several lawmakers also decried the minimal allocation for education. “The 4-percent GDP allotment in education is barely above the minimum international standards,” Co said.
Davao First District Rep. Paolo Duterte voted against the budget, citing unresolved corruption from the 2025 budget cycle. “A national budget should serve the people, not reward impunity. Transparency must come before approval, not after public outrage,” he said.
Even the Akbayan Party-list noted that despite some gains from public advocacy, the final budget “succumbed to old habits” of discretionary spending, ghost projects, and patronage. “It was a missed opportunity for genuine reform,” the group said.
While the P6.793-trillion budget has been ratified, the voices of dissent underscore the lingering concerns over transparency, discretionary allocations, and whether the 2026 spending plan will truly serve the Filipino people.