House approves P7.2-trillion 2027 budget amid minority objections

The House of Representatives approved on third and final reading the amended P7.2-trillion national budget for 2027, amid concerns from minority lawmakers over how funds were allocated across different sectors.

House Bill No. 10858, or the House General Appropriations Bill, received 281 affirmative votes, 13 negative votes, and one abstention during the plenary session.

The budget includes increased funding for infrastructure projects under the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), including an additional P180 billion in allocations introduced through the Budget Amendments and Review Subcommittee (BARSc).

BARSc also facilitated additional allocations for subsidy programs under agencies such as the Department of Social Welfare and Development and the Department of Health (DOH).

The 2027 budget also restores funding for flood control projects, allocating P107.4 billion for the purpose. The DPWH has pledged to implement reforms in the guidelines governing the use of the funds.

Following its approval by the House, the budget will proceed to Senate deliberations, where allocations may still be revised before the measure is formally enacted as the 2027 General Appropriations Act.

Minority questions budget priorities

Despite its passage, minority lawmakers raised concerns over the allocation of funds and whether the budget adequately addressed the needs of Filipinos.

Akbayan Party-list Rep. Dadah Kiram Ismula questioned what she described as insufficient attention to healthcare, arguing that more funding should have gone to the Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (PhilHealth) rather than to DOH subsidy programs.

Ismula said healthcare was a basic human right that remained difficult for many Filipinos to access, particularly amid the economic uncertainty caused by tensions in the Middle East.

She expressed concern over PhilHealth’s allocation, saying the agency had warned that its available funds would be insufficient to provide universal healthcare benefits.

“The House has a clear moral choice—to exercise its power of the purse and expand PhilHealth’s budget. To protect the Filipino people from catastrophic health expenditures,” the lawmaker said.

“We allow the funding for health to remain insufficient while billions of pesos are allocated for line items that do not directly save our people,” she added.

Makabayan lawmakers Kabataan Party-list Rep. Renee Co and ACT Teachers Party-list Rep. Antonio Tinio also criticized what they described as pork barrel allocations in the budget.

Co said P361.19 billion was allocated for what she called “hard pork,” including flood control and other infrastructure projects, while the education sector continued to seek additional funding.

She also identified P136.94 billion in “soft pork” for subsidy programs, P51.88 billion in lump-sum allocations for local government units, and P595.66 billion in what she called “General’s Pork” for military spending.

Co argued that the budget favored programs vulnerable to political patronage despite the need for more funding for social services.

“To remind this august chamber, there is a lot that was needed to continue funding the youth and education but it is clear that the government has abandoned the youth and needy Filipinos,” she said.

“It is clear to Kabataan Partylist that in the ‘Bagong Pilipinas’ of BBM—‘Bawat Budget Mina-Marcos.’ Because BBM—‘Binababoy ang Buwis ng Mamamayan.’ That’s why BBM, ‘Babawi ang Bayang Makikibaka,’” Co added.

Tinio echoed Co’s concerns, citing 6,212 projects worth P180.5 billion that he said were inserted during the House deliberations.

He said the additions increased the DPWH’s project count from 11,303 under the 2027 National Expenditure Program to 16,270.

Among the projects receiving substantial allocations were multipurpose buildings, which received P42.7 billion, and access roads, which received P29.7 billion, according to Tinio.

The ACT Teachers representative also questioned the transparency of BARSc’s amendments, saying the changes lacked sufficient details identifying which projects had been added or had their funding reduced.

“Congress does not want to list who the district congressman and party-list congressman inserted the 6,212 DPWH projects, and other congressional insertions or amendments in the passed General Appropriations Bill,” he said.

“What’s worse is that special provisions were added for the DPWH, [Department of Agriculture], and the [National Irrigation Administration]. The special provisions on project modification, which allow agencies to change the projects to new projects in the approved national budget,” he added.

Tinio described the budget as a “carrot and stick” mechanism, alleging that it rewarded lawmakers who supported the administration’s position while penalizing those who opposed it.