Who foots P23-B bill?

The cost of hosting Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) leaders has climbed from about P1 billion under then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in 2007 to nearly P23 billion under current President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in 2026, raising questions about public spending and accountability for national government funds.

A comparison of three Philippine chairmanships showed a sharp escalation in allocations: approximately P1 billion for the 12th ASEAN Summit in Cebu in January 2007, between P15.5 billion and P17 billion during President Rodrigo Duterte’s 2017 chairmanship, and about P22.9 billion spread across the 2025 and 2026 national budgets under Marcos.

However, Duterte’s administration spent only P3.789 billion.

In nominal terms that is a 15- to 17-fold jump from 2007 to 2017 and a further 35 percent to 48 percent rise to 2026.

The story is more complicated than the headline numbers. The three hostings differ in what was built, how the money was budgeted, how much was actually spent, and what auditors found.

The sharpest contrasts: 2007 was defined by a purpose-built venue and overpricing allegations; 2017 by large allocations that went substantially unspent; and 2026 by the largest appropriation yet, split across two fiscal years, with no audit results available because the final summit is still under way.

2007: Arroyo and the Cebu summit

The 12th ASEAN Summit and the 2nd East Asia Summit were originally scheduled for December 2006 but were moved to January 2007 after typhoon “Labuyo” struck the country.

Cebu Governor Gwendolyn Garcia said at the time that the national government contributed P1 billion toward the hosting, while the Cebu provincial government built the Cebu International Convention Center (CICC) and local government units chipped in P500 million toward hosting costs.

That split matters for any comparison. The P1 billion figure was the national contribution, not the full public outlay. The CICC, built by the provincial government, was reported to cost about P500 million at the time, later P515 million, and was subsequently reported to have totaled some P800 million.

A 2006 funding order is reported to have charged an initial P20 million to the President’s Contingent Fund, with the balance drawn from agency savings and the Department of Budget and Management.

The 2007 hosting was the only one of the three that involved new construction, and it produced the biggest controversy. Then Senator Panfilo Lacson sought a Senate probe in December 2007 over alleged overpricing of the CICC by at least P50 million, and businessman Crisologo Saavedra publicly alleged that hundreds of millions of pesos in costs were omitted from the official accounting.

The building was later damaged in the October 2013 Bohol earthquake and typhoon “Yolanda,” and the province sold it to Mandaue City for P300 million. A 2019 Commission on Audit report noted the sale lacked prior CoA approval and public bidding. The summit also drew criticism for the displacement of informal settlers near the venue.

2017: Duterte and the 50th anniversary chairmanship

The Duterte administration operated under a P3.35-trillion national budget and set aside roughly P15.5 billion to P17 billion for a year-long ASEAN chairmanship covering well over a hundred meetings, culminating in the April and November leaders summits. The allocation drew lawmakers’ scrutiny because it exceeded the roughly P10 billion spent on APEC 2015 and dwarfed the 2007 cost.

The audit record is where 2017 stands apart.

Congress gave the Office of the President (OP) P11.074 billion to host the ASEAN and related anniversary activities. According to the CoA’s 2017 report, only 34 percent — P3.789 billion — was used, leaving about P7.285 billion unspent. CoA’s report attributed the low utilization to a reduction in the cost of hosting.

Unaudited and flagged amounts

The CoA noted that it could not audit about P757.4 million the OP disbursed for ASEAN because documentation was still being completed. The OP also paid roughly P3.09 billion to ASEAN consultants, part of a very large jump in its professional-services spending that year.

The Presidential Communications Operations Office received a media-operations fund of about P1.42 billion. CoA said only P219.24 million of that had been presented for post-audit, of which P38.8 million (17.7 percent) was questionable, including goods and services without proper post-qualification, van rentals, and IT equipment rented at a cost exceeding outright purchase.

The CoA recommended charges against the responsible officials.

The CoA issued a 2020 notice of disallowance over P1.96 million in ASEAN security funds used to buy two Isuzu Crosswind vehicles without authority from the Office of the President.

A CoA en banc decision dated 13 August 2020 dismissed a petition by former National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon Jr. and four NSC officials to recall the notice. The CoA found the petition lacked merit because the notice had become final and executory.

Because the 2017 hosting used existing facilities, the controversies concerned operations and procurement rather than construction.

Marcos Jr. and the Philippines’ second-hand chairmanship

The Philippines took the 2026 chair after Myanmar stepped aside amid its civil war.

Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin said in December 2024 that preparations would entail about P22 billion, and the OP’s 2025 budget was raised by roughly P5.2 billion for advance preparations (other reports and legislators cited P5.4 billion for the 2025 GAA).

The 2026 GAA then provided P17.49 billion, of which P10.78 billion went to the OP.

Reported allocations to other agencies included P1.93 billion to the Philippine National Police, P739.13 million to the Bureau of Fire Protection, P526.13 million to the Department of Information and Communications Technology, and P482 million to the Department of Tourism.

Bersamin said the hosting accounted for about 64 percent of the OP’s proposed 2026 budget of roughly P27.3 billion.

Spreading appropriations over two fiscal years was the main structural difference from 2017, when the cost was concentrated on a single year. It was also the likeliest reason the 2026 total read so large relative to the budget in any one year.