EDITORIAL - Just junk it

The head of the House of Representatives committee on social services has denied that congressmen’s resistance to an anti-epal provision derailed the ratification of a bill institutionalizing the Assistance to Individuals in Crisis Situations or AICS.

Budget watchdogs had pushed for the abolition of AICS and other aid programs in which politicians have a say in the disbursement. But despite the public outrage that erupted over what has been described as the institutionalized looting of public funds through the national budget, lawmakers allowed the abolition of only one ayuda program in the 2026 General Appropriations Act: the Ayuda para sa Kapos ang Kita Program or AKAP.

All other aid programs, including what 72 medical and public healthcare groups had denounced as a medical pork barrel – MAIFIP – were retained in the 2026 budget. Lawmakers also retained their privilege of issuing guarantee letters for beneficiaries of the Medical Assistance for Indigents and Financially Incapacitated Patients. The medical community had demanded that funding for MAIFIP be allocated instead to the non-political Philippine Health Insurance Corp.

And instead of scrapping AICS, seen as a fund from which politicians can claim personal credit for a broad range of tax-funded ayuda including for medical, disaster relief and even funeral needs, Congress now wants to institutionalize it by law.

Last Wednesday night as senators prepared to adjourn the special session, Sen. Erwin Tulfo disclosed that the AICS bill could not be ratified because congressmen were opposing Section 17 of the measure. The provision bars politicians from distributing financial assistance under AICS, which is administered by the Department of Social Welfare and Development.

Why AICS has to be institutionalized by law is itself questionable, considering the existence of so many types of aid programs and the allocation of billions in contingency funds for all sorts of emergencies.

The DSWD has long maintained that politicians are barred from its aid programs, both in person or through self-promoting materials posted at distribution sites. But politicians themselves often post their images at such aid distribution events or take personal credit for the inauguration of medical facilities under AICS.

With the flood control and budget corruption scandal still unresolved, lawmakers should at least moderate their appetite for using public funds for their self-promotion. As another election campaign approaches, they must shell out funds from their own pockets, not from public coffers.

Unless a clear and fully enforceable anti-epal provision is incorporated in the law, AICS must not be institutionalized, and that bill deserves to be junked.