DATA | So... What's Up with the "6-7" Trillion Budget?

President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. signed the ₱6.793 trillion national budget into law last January 5, approving what Malacañang described as the country’s “most prudent budget” only after the fiscal year had already begun, a delayed enactment for a spending plan that governs the nation’s public funds.

The signing itself was notably restrained. According to media reports, journalists and invited guests were barred from bringing cameras and mobile phones into the ceremony, limiting public documentation of the event and casting an unusual veil over the approval of the largest budget in Philippine history.

Budget in a Nutshell

The 2026 General Appropriations Act (GAA) increases spending by about 7.4 percent over last year, marking it the largest budgets in history, though in truth, every new budget often claims that distinction.

The education sector comprising the Department of Education (DepEd) and state universities and colleges (SUCs) received the largest portion of the 2026 budget, totaling roughly ₱1.345 trillion or about 4.36 percent of GDP, in line with the Constitution’s mandate to give it the highest priority.

Beyond education, the Department of Health (DOH) commands ₱448.1 billion to support hospitals and universal health care programs. The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) will spend ₱530.9 billion on infrastructure. Other departments, including social welfare, defense, internal security, and agriculture, also receive hundreds of billions in allocations.

A significant portion of the budget is already “locked in” before agencies can spend on programs. Debt servicing alone accounts for roughly ₱2 trillion, covering interest on national loans, while personnel costs consume another large share, funding salaries and benefits across government. These fixed expenditures constrain discretionary spending, shaping how much is actually available for operational programs and new projects.

Highest Ever in Education?

Education’s line item in the 2026 national budget is historic, not just in headline size but in how it was shaped through budget negotiations. The sector’s allocation breached the 4% of GDP benchmark, the first time this UNESCO international standard has been met, with final funding totaling ₱1.345 trillion.

DepEd received about ₱1.015 trillion, an increase of roughly ₱86.8 billion from the original proposal, with significant sums earmarked for classroom construction and basic education facilities.

SUCs were allocated around ₱134.9 billion, while the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) received ₱33.9 billion. The Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) was also granted ₱20.2 billion for scholarships and technical‑vocational programs.

Much of this record funding came from reallocating funds from cut flood control projects and other sources to priority education programs, including feeding, textbooks, and learning support, as lawmakers sought to fulfill the constitutional mandate to prioritize education.

Also, the figure only reaches four percent because the House of Representatives (HOR) counted agencies like the Philippine National Police Academy (PNPA) and the Philippine Military Academy (PMA), which properly belong under national defense. Excluding these, the education share drops below 4%, based on estimates from the People’s Budget Coalition.

Stark contrast

On paper, education boasts an all-time high, yet in reality, many SUCs are left scrambling to cover basic staff salaries, maintain facilities, and keep programs running.

According to Kabataan Partylist, the allocated budget in 2026 alloted ₱90 per student in DepEd and ₱100 per student for CHED. During the Congress deliberations, the Congress rejected Kabataan's proposed budget amendments, which aimed to boost funds for 25 SUCs struggling with insufficient allocations, justifying their decision by stating that the current 2026 budget for SUCs was "enough already."

Even though budgets increased for all SUCs in the National Capital Region (NCR), the final appropriations still fall far short of what universities say they need. 

The University of the Philippines (UP) System asked for ₱46.85 billion for 2026, but the budget that reached the National Expenditure Program (NEP) was only ₱29.47 billion, leaving a gap of about ₱17.38 billion between the university’s request and the government’s offer.

In the Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP), the country’s most populated SUC, the university proposed ₱12.7 billion to expand programs, hire faculty, and support students, yet only ₱3.79 billion was approved, barely 30% of its request, leaving an ₱8.91 billion shortfall. The deficit threatens to cap student admissions, delay program upgrades, and stretch personnel and facilities to the breaking point. 

This mismatch shows that even when budgets rise, the increases often remain insufficient compared to the actual funding requirements set by the universities themselves.

Marcos Jr. exercised his veto power on unprogrammed appropriations (UAs), including funds meant for State University and College personnel. The vetoed UA covered ₱10.77 billion for salary adjustments and ₱32.47 billion for retirement and terminal leave benefits, crucial for hiring instructors, regularizing staff, and paying benefits on time.

The Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) Philippines sounded the alarm, noting that the veto could trigger a massive exodus of faculty and staff. The move creates job insecurity, heavier workloads, and risks of delayed salaries and benefits for academic and administrative personnel already overworked and underpaid, often forced to juggle multiple classes, committee work, and administrative duties.

Cleanest budget ever?

Malacañang and some lawmakers have tagged the 2026 General Appropriations Act as the ‘cleanest budget ever’—a claim anchored largely on President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s decision to veto portions of the UA and on assurances that the budget can withstand legal scrutiny. According to Palace, the veto was meant to prevent ‘blank check’ spending and to strengthen transparency, especially after controversies that hounded previous budgets.

Understanding this claim requires revisiting how the budget was crafted. It began with the submission of the NEP to Congress, followed by a series of committee hearings in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. 

Lawmakers also scrutinized agency proposals, proposed amendments, and eventually convened a bicameral conference committee to reconcile different versions between the two chambers’ versions. In a move touted as a transparency milestone after years of criticism that bicam decisions were made behind closed doors, the bicameral deliberations were partially opened to the public for the first time.

The budget’s delayed enactment meant that 2026 opened under a reenacted budget—the first in seven years—before Marcos signed the ₱6.793 trillion spending plan into law five days into 2026. While Malacañang maintained that the final version is legally sound and fiscally disciplined, questions about where the money goes, how flexible those funds are, and who ultimately benefits remain unanswered.

Unprogrammed appropriations under scrutiny

The sharpest flashpoint in the ‘cleanest budget’ debate is the treatment of unprogrammed appropriations. UAs are standby funds not tied to specific programs and may only be released if certain conditions are met, such as excess revenues or new loan proceeds. In the original 2026 budget proposal, UAs totaled around ₱243.4 billion; Marcos then vetoed roughly ₱92.5 billion worth of these appropriations, leaving about ₱150.9 billion intact. The retained UAs were largely earmarked for foreign-assisted projects, the modernization of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and risk-management programs.

Still, concerns persist. House Deputy Minority Leader and ML party-list Representative Leila de Lima said that scrapping the entire ₱243 billion UAs would have been the more principled course of action, stressing that any remaining amount continues to function as a ‘pork barrel’.

De Lima further questioned the logic of retaining unprogrammed funds at all, noting that Executive Secretary and former Finance Secretary Ralph Recto himself had earlier stated that no excess revenues are expected.

“If we are not expecting excess revenues, how are we going to fund the UAs?” she said. 

De Lima also stressed that expenditures deemed truly necessary should already be included in programmed appropriations, and that any future excess revenues should be addressed through special appropriations duly enacted by Congress rather than through standby discretionary funds. 

Persistent red flags

Questions about cleanliness are further complicated by long-standing issues that survived the veto pen. In spite of the controversy on flood control anomalies and ghost projects, DPWH managed to clinch the second-largest allocation in the 2026 budget at ₱530.9 billion.

The steady flow of its budget, even as accountability remains confined to minor players to what could be considered some of the most brazen corruption in the country’s history, reinforces doubts that systemic abuse in infrastructure spending is being meaningfully confronted.

Similarly, contentious is the ₱8 billion allocation for the Support to the Barangay Development Program of the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC). Human rights groups and some lawmakers have long questioned the program’s effectiveness and alleged its use as a political tool in communities, yet it continues to receive substantial funding.

Adding to these concerns are warnings about “hard and soft” pork barrel items embedded in the budget. Watchdog groups estimate that as much as ₱633 billion may fall under various forms of shadow pork, ranging from lump-sum allocations to projects with vague beneficiaries. Economist JC Punongbayan has also flagged the practice of placing big-ticket projects under UAs, citing Department of Economy, Planning, and Development (DEPDev) 2024 report that identified delays in counterpart funding as a recurring bottleneck. For 2026, he warned, this could mean continued delays in mass transport projects—worsening traffic congestion and undermining long-term productivity.

The 2026 national budget introduces several procedural adjustments compared with the 2025 spending plan, including the expanded use of the presidential veto and revised allocations for select priority sectors such as education. These shifts indicate attempts to respond to earlier criticisms of the budget process.

A closer examination of expenditure patterns shows that key structural concerns remain. Programs resembling discretionary allocations continue under modified labels, while funding priorities show limited alignment with persistent gaps in basic services and social protection. Improvements in presentation and select reforms do not substantially alter how resources are distributed or how long-standing weaknesses in public spending are addressed.

This budget does not rise to the urgency of a country grappling with deepening inequality, overstrained public services, and eroding public trust—it continues to fail the Filipino people.

Article: John Enrick Saez & John David Parol

Graphics: Janelle Vinluan