Philippine 2025 Budget: Critics Question Marcos Vetoes Amid Persistent Pork Barrel Concerns

By Simon Thornton, South East Asia Correspondent

In a move that has sparked renewed debate over fiscal transparency and governance in the Philippines, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has signed a P6.326-trillion national budget for 2025, vetoing P194 billion in expenditures. However, critics, including former Senate President Franklin Drilon and ex-Finance Undersecretary Cielo Magno, argue that these cuts have failed to address deep-seated issues such as “pork barrel” allocations, potentially leaving room for misuse of public funds. As the country grapples with post-typhoon recovery and social welfare needs, this budget decision raises questions about priorities and accountability, with implications for millions of Filipinos reliant on government programmes.

The budget, enacted on 30 December 2024, represents a significant financial blueprint for the Philippines’ development plan through 2028. Yet, the vetoes—primarily targeting unprogrammed appropriations (UAs) and specific Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) projects—have been described as superficial by opposition voices. Drilon, in statements to local media, highlighted that while P168.24 billion was struck from UAs, the core allocations critics decried as “pork” remain largely untouched. This could, if confirmed, perpetuate a system where discretionary funds are vulnerable to political influence, though no evidence directly links current allocations to corruption.

Background to the Budget Controversy

The 2025 General Appropriations Act (GAA) stems from Marcos’s administration’s Philippine Development Plan 2023-2028, which emphasises enhanced social services, infrastructure, and economic resilience. The budget includes substantial allocations for public works, health, and education, but it follows a contentious legislative process. During bicameral conference committee discussions, concerns emerged over “insertions” that bloated the DPWH budget by nearly P289 billion, according to reports from the Philippine Daily Inquirer.

Marcos defended his vetoes in a public address, stating that they were informed by public feedback and aimed at aligning spending with administration priorities. He vetoed P26.065 billion in DPWH projects, including 95 flood mitigation initiatives critical for regions hit by typhoons like Kristine (international name: Trami) in 2024. These projects encompass flood control structures in Metro Manila, Bicol, and other vulnerable areas. Additionally, cuts affected subsidies for the Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (PhilHealth) at P96 billion, the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) at P74.4 billion, and education computerisation at P10 billion.

While the President claimed these actions would free resources for “legacy projects,” analysts suggest that the vetoed funds may not easily redirect to defunded areas. Drilon pointed out that the P26 billion reverting to the national treasury is insufficient to restore cuts to essential programmes like 4Ps, the government’s flagship anti-poverty initiative. If revenues fall short, as is possible in an uncertain economic climate, these programmes could face delays until the 2026 budget.

Criticisms and Allegations of Inaction

Former officials have been vocal in their dissent. Drilon, a seasoned political figure, described the veto process as “cosmetic,” arguing that unprogrammed activities lack backing from guaranteed revenues. In interviews, he noted that the remaining P347 billion in insertions could still enable patronage politics. Similarly, Magno, who has a history of challenging budget irregularities through legal means, criticised the budget as “pro-politician and anti-people.” She referenced potential Supreme Court challenges to the PhilHealth subsidy removal, echoing previous petitions she co-filed with figures like Senator Aquilino Pimentel.

These criticisms highlight a broader narrative of fiscal mismanagement in Philippine politics. The “pork barrel” system, historically linked to scandals, involves discretionary funds that can be allocated to local projects, raising concerns about transparency. While no direct evidence of wrongdoing has been established in this instance, the persistence of such allocations may erode public trust. It is worth noting that claims of corruption are speculative and unverified; if investigations were to confirm irregularities, they could lead to reforms, but currently, no such evidence exists.

Magno specifically flagged programmes like the Ayuda sa Kapos ang Kita Program (Akap), a cash assistance scheme for the near-poor, as susceptible to political exploitation. Social Welfare Secretary Rex Gatchalian has countered that Akap will be managed by social workers without political interference, but skeptics remain cautious. This debate underscores the tension between immediate aid and long-term accountability in social spending.

Implications for Public Services and Economic Stability

The vetoes’ impact on key sectors could be profound. For instance, the defunding of flood mitigation projects in typhoon-prone areas like Bicol and Metro Manila might hinder resilience efforts. President Marcos had pledged a comprehensive flood management plan for the Bicol River Basin following Typhoon Kristine, which devastated communities in 2024. If these projects are not revived, regions already vulnerable to climate change could face heightened risks, potentially exacerbating poverty and displacement.

In health and education, the cuts are equally concerning. The removal of PhilHealth subsidies could limit access to healthcare for low-income families, while reductions in 4Ps funding might affect cash transfers to 4.4 million households. Education’s computerisation programme, aimed at digital learning, has also been scaled back, which could widen the gap in an era of technological advancement. Economists suggest that, if these cuts persist, they may slow human capital development, with potential long-term effects on GDP growth—though such estimates are unconfirmed and based on preliminary analyses from sources like the University of the Philippines.

From an economic perspective, the budget’s structure relies on projected revenues, including potential new taxes. If collections exceed targets, vetoed UAs could be revisited, providing a safety net. However, in a context of global economic uncertainty, such as fluctuating commodity prices and post-pandemic recovery, this is not guaranteed. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has previously warned about fiscal risks in emerging markets like the Philippines, emphasising the need for prudent budgeting.

In-Depth Analysis: Governance and Reform Prospects

This budget saga reflects deeper governance challenges in the Philippines, a nation navigating democratic transitions and economic aspirations. The Marcos administration’s approach—balancing fiscal discipline with development goals—mirrors trends in Southeast Asia, where leaders often face scrutiny over resource allocation. Comparatively, countries like Vietnam have implemented stricter budget controls under their Law on the State Budget, potentially offering lessons for Manila.

If the criticisms from Drilon and Magno gain traction, they could catalyse legislative reforms, such as enhanced oversight of UAs or constitutional amendments to curb discretionary spending. However, any such changes would require broad political consensus, which is elusive in the Philippines’ multiparty system. Public sentiment, as gauged from social media platforms like X, shows growing frustration; posts from accounts such as @ConstitutionNet express concerns over inequality and corruption, though these are anecdotal and not representative of official data.

It is essential to approach these speculations with caution. While the budget may inadvertently sustain elements of patronage, no adverse inferences should be drawn without verified evidence. If reforms are pursued, they might strengthen institutions like the Commission on Audit, promoting greater transparency. Disclaimers aside, the current scenario highlights the need for inclusive policymaking, ensuring that budgets serve the public interest rather than entrenched interests.

The 2025 budget under Marcos Jr. represents a pivotal moment for Philippine governance. With critics pushing for accountability and the administration defending its priorities, the outcome could shape the nation’s path towards sustainable development. As debates continue, Filipinos await tangible benefits from this financial plan.