We can’t slay a budget monster by simply televising it

This week, the bicameral conference committee on the proposed 2026 national government budget resolved the conflicting provisions of the Senate and House versions of the General Appropriations Bill (GAB).

This was significant, and even historic. It is the first live televised bicameral conference, representing a move towards a more transparent budget process. The public was given a bird’s eye view of how the national budget is finalized, from the negotiations and last-minute lobbying to the grandstanding of some lawmakers.

The Senate leadership received praise from budget reform advocates for standing firm in its opposition to a last-ditch lobby by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) to restore its original budget that was cut by P45 billion. It also took things a step further by allocating an additional P16.52 billion from the DPWH to the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth).

Still, much is left to be desired. Economist JC Punongbayan observed that while allocations for flood control were reduced, “hard” and “soft” pork projects were inflated to compensate for the cuts. He reported a significant increase in the allocations for “hard pork” projects. For example, the Department of Agriculture (DA)’s allocations for the construction of its farm-to-market roads increased from P16 billion to P33 billion. Similarly, the Department of Health’s Health Facilities Enhancement Program (HFEP) fund increased from P14 billion to P21 billion.

Punongbayan also noted that “soft pork” received dramatic increases. Examples include the increase in funding for MAIFIP (guarantee letters), from P24 billion to P 51 billion; AICS from P27 billion to P63.9 billion; TUPAD from P12 billion to P 25 billion; CHED’s Tulong Dunong, from zero to P2 billion; the DILG’s Local Government Support Fund from P16 billion to P487 billion and the DA’s PAFFF from zero to P10 billion.

The bicam also approved P243 billion in unprogrammed appropriations for the 2026 budget. These unprogrammed appropriations have drawn scrutiny following a Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) report revealing that billions of pesos’ worth of flood control and infrastructure projects under the current administration were financed using such funds.

Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian, chairman of the Senate finance committee, reassured the public that approved unprogrammed appropriations will not go to flood control projects. He said that they will solely be used for foreign-assisted projects, as well as the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) modernization program.

Budget reform advocates also underscored the interference of the executive branch in the bicam process, noting that the top officials of the DPWH and the DA were allowed to attend the conference and make last-minute requests for their budgets. According to them, such executive participation was unheard of in past bicam proceedings.

Despite these, the live telecast of the bicameral conference is a step in the right direction. It allowed the spotlight to focus on the most crucial stage of the budget process. We saw, in real time, how decisions were made, deals and compromises were floated and power was exercised over our money. This is a victory of all truth-loving Filipinos who are frontliners in the fight against systemic corruption.

Yet, we should keep in mind that while transparency is important, by itself, it will not transform a system based on patronage. The system has proven to be exceptionally adaptable. When the Supreme Court declared the Priority Development Fund (PDAF), popularly known as the “pork barrel fund,” unconstitutional in 2013, we didn’t see the last of it. It reappeared as “allocables” in the National Expenditure Program (NEP) and within unprogrammed appropriations. While labels may have changed, greed did not.

This is why budget reform advocates are right to insist that pork never truly vanished from the 2026 budget. Yes, pork may have been trimmed in one place, but it resurfaced somewhere else, even vastly enlarged. In front of national TV, the budget monster learned to perform under the lights.

This brings the spotlight to President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. He is again challenged to prove that his anti-corruption campaign is sincere by line-vetoing sections of the budget still laden with pork. All eyes are on him. This is the first budget that he will sign after he exposed the flood control corruption scandal. He cannot afford to waver.

As for us citizens, the lesson of this “historic” bicam is quite sobering. We must not mistake visibility for transparency and accountability. A live telecast alone does not change the rules of the game. Truth is, there is a risk that performative openness could legitimize abuse of the budget. When pork-laden budgets are debated in full view of cameras and are still approved, it sends the message that if it happened publicly, it must be acceptable. After all, it was broadcast live on television.

Reforming the budget involves more than just broadcasting it live. It requires complete transparency right from the beginning of the process, not only at the bicam level. It should truly involve participation, creating spaces for budget watchdogs, progressive economists and civil society to scrutinize economic assumptions, offer alternative predictions and propose grassroots priorities. It also requires a serious review of budget allocations to make them plunder-proof, especially unprogrammed appropriations, which have repeatedly functioned as “fiscal parking lots” for pork.

Without these reforms, the “open bicam” becomes a cosmetic exercise, a reform that makes the process a regular TV program, but no less predatory.

We cannot defeat a monster simply by putting it on live TV. It may behave for a while, conceal its horror and play nice. But unless the rules of the budget system are fundamentally changed, the beast of plunder will just adapt, continue to feed and, ultimately, rear its ugly head, this time, before an audience.