House leaders defend 2027 budget amendments amid insertion allegations

Lawmakers at the House of Representatives pushed back against allegations that amendments made to the proposed P7.2-trillion national budget for 2027 were unlawful, arguing that the changes were necessary and made in coordination with government agencies.

During a press conference of the National Unity Party (NUP) on Monday, Antipolo 1st District Rep. Ronaldo Puno and Bataan 2nd District Rep. Albert “Abet” Garcia defended the House version of the proposed budget against criticism.

Both lawmakers said amendments to the National Expenditure Program (NEP) could not be made without the prior approval of the concerned government agency.

Puno said changes to the NEP were necessary, particularly because some portions of the executive’s proposal contained only lump-sum allocations, which he said ran counter to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling.

“With respect to insertions, you know, the problem is when the House got the NEP, the public works sections were lump sum. The appropriations committee and congress really helped to produce the listing of the details because it did not come with details,” Puno said.

“It is not an insertion because it came in a lump sum, didn’t the Supreme Court prohibit lump sums…it was not insertions, those were in compliance with the Supreme Court decision to avoid lump sums,” he added.

The House deputy speaker maintained that amendments to the budget, particularly those involving projects under the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), took into account the conditions necessary for project implementation.

Puno said sufficient safeguards were in place to prevent the arbitrary inclusion of projects through amendments made by the lower chamber.

“If you look at it from afar, it seems like there were insertions that happened. When you look closer, Congress had no choice. It had to fill up the blanks because only lump sums arrived,” he explained.

Citing the Supreme Court ruling that declared the 2024 and 2025 national budgets unconstitutional, Puno stressed the need to comply with the new safeguards, particularly those governing unprogrammed appropriations.

He said he saw no major issue between the high court’s ruling and the House version of the proposed budget, adding that any concerns could be addressed by the Senate or the bicameral conference committee.

‘No insertions’

Puno further argued that repeated claims of budget insertions reflected an apparent lack of understanding of the budget process.

He said blanket accusations were unwarranted, adding that while he did not agree with every item in the budget, he respected those who prepared it.

“Even when the appropriations committee inserts the things there, they cannot do it without the clearance of the agency. And then after that, there is an additional safeguard that is created by the agencies, particularly public works,” Puno said.

He also maintained that the budget underwent extensive scrutiny by lawmakers before approval, disputing the notion that legislators could simply add projects at will.

Puno said Congress had little flexibility to move allocations around in the current budget and insisted that the amounts were directed toward valid projects.

“Let’s grant our leadership and the appropriations committee, the respect that they deserve,” he said.

Garcia urges specific details on budget concerns

Garcia, meanwhile, urged budget watchdogs to provide specific details about their criticisms of the House General Appropriations Bill (HGAB) so lawmakers could validate and address any issues.

The House appropriations committee vice chairperson said some concerns could involve typographical errors arising from the volume of documents reviewed by the lower chamber before approving the budget.

“So, the best we can do if the People’s Budget Coalition can be more specific so we can validate it. Because if we can not see the specific projects that they were referencing, we can not validate it,” Garcia said.

“We have to find out, it would be better if they listed the specific projects so that we can check and rectify if needed,” he added.

The House approved the 2027 HGAB on 12 October, with 281 votes in favor and 13 against.

Budget deliberations are ongoing in the Senate ahead of the bicameral conference committee, where both chambers of Congress will reconcile their differences on the bill.