Cardinal David calls for end to patronage politics amid 2027 budget insertions

Cardinal Pablo Virgilio David has called for an end to political patronage, warning against the misuse of public funds for personal political gain amid concerns over billions of pesos in congressional insertions in the proposed 2027 national budget.

“It is time to unlearn the politics of patronage—and relearn the politics of public service,” David said.

His statement followed findings by watchdog group People's Budget Coalition (PBC), which identified billions of pesos in allocations in the House-approved 2027 budget that it considered vulnerable to political patronage.

The group classified the questionable allocations into four categories: hard pork, or infrastructure funding; soft pork, covering social assistance programs; shadow pork, referring to concealed allocations; and local pork, consisting of funds distributed to local governments.

David warned that political patronage continues to undermine accountability in the use of government resources.

“Public funds are not the personal generosity of politicians. They are the people’s money, entrusted to public officials for the common good,” he said.

The cardinal clarified, however, that not all congressional amendments to the proposed national budget are necessarily corrupt.

He cited a recent Supreme Court ruling recognizing that congressional amendments are not inherently unconstitutional but must comply with constitutional safeguards.

David urged the Senate to closely examine the House-approved budget and demand transparency in the allocation of public funds.

“The Senate now has an opportunity—and a responsibility—to demand full disclosure of the proponents, locations, technical specifications, costs, and justifications of the House-added projects. Those that cannot be adequately justified should be removed. If questionable items survive Congress, the President must seriously consider exercising his constitutional veto power,” he said.

He also called on the executive branch to explain whether government agencies had conducted technical evaluations of the proposed additions.

“The Executive, too, must explain whether its own agencies have technically evaluated these additions. It cannot simply defend them on the assumption that they might benefit the public,” David said.