1 month ago
19
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
MANILA, Philippines — It took less than a minute for the House of Representatives to ratify the 2026 national budget. Why this was the case and why members who disagreed were not allowed to explain their vote?
The bicameral conference committee report on the General Appropriations Bill (GAB) is usually voted on in the House through viva voce, a process in which votes are not counted individually, and approval is determined by the louder "ayes" or "nays."
This was the process used for both the 2025 and 2026 GAB. The main difference, however, lies in the time given to members to review the signed bicameral report before ratification.
Short review window, limited scrutiny
For the 2025 GAB, the House ratified the report at 7 p.m. on Dec. 11, 2024, just hours after it was signed and roughly an hour after members received a copy, according to then-Rep. Raoul Manuel.
This left members with little time to scrutinize changes in the budget bill’s thousands of pages, especially since the bicam proceedings were still conducted behind closed doors.
It was only in the 20th Congress, amid growing criticism of pork-like allocations and controversial flood control insertions, that lawmakers were pressed to make the bicam hearings and budget documents public.
Members of Congress also had a bit more time than last year to review the bicam report, since they were given a digital copy the night before ratification.
No chance to explain
Despite the relatively longer period, lawmakers were not given the opportunity to explain their votes upon ratification on December 29. The livestreamed plenary lasted 6 minutes and 45 seconds, covering only the actual ratification.
As a result, lawmakers opposing the budget had to rely on press releases and social media statements, with their opposition not reflected in official government records.
At least for the 2025 GAB, minority lawmakers who opposed the budget like Manuel and former Reps. Arlene Brosas and France Castro were able to deliver their manifestation and justify their vote during the plenary after the report was ratified.
In a December 31 radio interview, Rep. Renee Co (Kabataan Party-list) said that barring lawmakers from formally explaining their "no" votes on the 2026 budget is simply part of the Marcos Jr. administration’s effort to portray next year’s budget as free from the controversies that surrounded the 2025 budget.
"So may narrative po ito eh. May reason kung ba't ganito 'yung proseso. It is because kung marami ang magno-no on the record, hindi siya magandang tignan sa administrasyong ito," she said over True FM.
(There’s a narrative behind this. There’s a reason why the process is like this. It’s because if many people say "no" on the record, it wouldn’t look good for this administration.)
Co also said that the microphones at the plenary were on mute or had been turned off, which is why lawmakers who opposed the budget's ratification were unable to deliver their manifestation or share their grievances over how the 2026 budget was finalized.
At the same time, she said a rushed budget is not new to the Marcos Jr. administration. Since President Bongbong Marcos took office, the budget bill has been certified as urgent, which allows Congress to bypass technical timelines like separate days for readings and pass the measure on the same day.
Unprogrammed funds, dole-out programs still present
The three-member Makabayan bloc also explained their "no" vote in a statement on Wednesday, saying claims that the budget is "pork-free" and the "most people-centered" are lies.
They criticized the bill for continuing to prioritize soft pork — with billions of pesos allocated to unprogrammed funds and dole-out programs like AICS, TUPAD, MAIFIP, and even presidential assistance to farmers and fisherfolk — instead of funding programs that address the economic and health issues that drive Filipinos to seek financial assistance.
"The ratification process itself was a mockery of transparency. The bicameral report was railroaded in less than a minute, with no opportunity for House members to raise questions or manifestations on the changes made by the committee," the bloc said.
Co also stressed that, regardless of the special provisions placed in the budget to improve transparency mechanisms in the pork-like programs, the same framework funding these programs still exists.
"Whatever shiny coating they deploy, this is a budget for the political survival of the Marcos administration, a budget that enables systemic corruption, and a budget for fascist repression of a growing people's movement for accountability and genuine democracy," Makabayan lawmakers said.
For them, the ratification of the P6.793-trillion budget simply fits into what they described as the Marcos administration's "Christmas scam."
Several other lawmakers also voted against the measure, including Reps. Leila de Lima (ML Party-list), Edgar Erice (Caloocan, 2nd District), Chel Diokno, Perci Cendaña, Dadah Ismula (Akbayan Party-list), Paolo Henry Marcoleta (SAGIP Party-list), Isidro Ungab (Davao, 3rd District), Paolo Duterte (Davao, 1st District), and Harold Duterte (PPP Party-list).
