Fix the budget process

The flood control scandal has more to do with the flawed budget process, rather than corruption itself. Simply put, the present process lends itself to corruption. Realistically, corruption can be minimized but not completely eliminated. And to minimize corruption, the budget process should be reformed.

If we wait for all ongoing investigations to end before modifying the budget process, then we are doomed. Worse, if we fixate only on going after crooks and jailing them rather than urgently revising the budget process in parallel, then expect corruption to persist.

The flood control scandal is the predictable result of a budget system that had tolerated opaque releases, midnight insertions, and cosmetic public participation. The sad part is that we have had an antidote in a suite of budget reform bills filed in 2010-2011 that lawmakers largely ignored.

Had Congress enacted these bills two administrations ago, many of today’s losses in public money, and in trust in government, could have been avoided. We might also have had better infrastructure and improved services. Instead, we are now grappling with a bottomless pit of a scandal.

What has been revealed thus far: substandard or ghost flood projects, an over-concentrated contractor pool, and alleged kickbacks from contractors to lawmakers who facilitated the release of project funds. At the heart are hundreds of billions of pesos in flood control projects since 2022.

After the President “exposed” the problem, emergency brakes were applied. Investigations have been initiated. A number of people involved have been identified. Witnesses are being vetted. But the smarter course is to urgently design corruption opportunities out of the budget system.

I suggest that Congress review the suite of budget reform bills sponsored in 2010 by then Senator Teofisto “TG” Guingona III, who also chaired the Blue Ribbon Committee at the time. In essence, his bills aimed to protect the budget process from executive and legislative abuse.

Top of the list is Senate Bill No. 2185, which puts the bicameral conference committee meeting on the budget under lights and cameras. It opens bicameral conferences to observers, publishes schedules and minutes, and invites media and civil society organizations (CSOs) to observe the process.

The intent is to prevent outsized, last-minute changes to the budget. Without public eyes on bicameral proceedings, insertions became commonplace. This needs to stop. We cannot rely on the House’s promise to livestream the proceedings. This should be codified in the budget law, and soon.

Recent reporting underscores the point. After the House approved the proposed P6.793-trillion 2026 budget on Oct. 14, analysts urged Congress to open the bicameral process to the public to rebuild trust and curb last-minute changes; they also noted that CSOs were invited early but left out of key amendment stages.

In August, the Senate passed a resolution to open joint budget talks, but the House has yet to adopt a counterpart; House leaders say they can open bicameral meetings by procedure, without a formal resolution. In mid-October, the President said congressional leaders agreed to livestream the bicam, but watchdogs still pressed for a real-time transparency server and for codified rules to prevent any return to “secret sessions.”

I agree with codified rules. Nothing beats actually institutionalizing public observation of bicameral conference proceedings on the budget bill. And opening the sessions to media as well. Why should the process be done in secret, anyway? It is the people’s money. And the budget is for the public.

Then there is Senate Bill No. 2183, which makes every peso traceable in real time by requiring the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) to automatically disclose, monthly and online, all project-level releases, detailing amounts, dates, purposes, and fund sources.

This fix would create a public money trail that journalists and CSOs and the public can match with on-ground reality. Transparency was precisely what the flood control projects lacked. Corruption surfaced only after inspection, and it took the President to do that.

Senate Bill No. 2184 bans the manipulation of “unprogrammed” funds by requiring supplemental appropriations laws for any extra budget or windfall. Senate Bill No. 2181 ties any budget augmentation to filed and audited quarterly reports; otherwise, all savings revert to the General Fund.

Senate Bill No. 2182 limits a reenacted budget to salaries, statutory obligations, and essential operating expenses to remove the temptation to push new projects through old appropriations. Then Senate Bill No. 2186 institutionalizes CSO participation in the budget process.

Essentially, these bills shine necessary light on the budget process. They pave the way for the sunlight test of transparency and accountability through live disclosure, limits on discretion, and citizen participation. Lawmakers could not be bothered with these reforms 15 years ago. Will they look into them now?

These are reforms designed to make corruption harder to hide. In today’s data-driven world, the budget process would benefit from open data standards, live release logs, live-streamed bicameral meetings, beneficial-ownership checks, and mandated citizen front-row seats to the budget process.

Had we done these two administrations ago, today’s scandal would have been harder to hatch. Monthly release logs would have let anyone plot money out versus work done, and open bicameral meetings would have deterred last-minute insertions or add-ons. CSOs would have had guaranteed hearing time to question projects and budgets before approval.

Instead, we are now attempting to claw back hundreds of billions of pesos in alleged ghost projects. Frankly, at this point, I don’t think anybody really knows where all the lost money went. We can only presume the funds lined people’s pockets. But can we actually trace all of the funds?

Investigate, make recommendations, and prosecute the guilty. But, more urgently, Congress needs to change the budget process. Some of these old bills can be refiled, if not bundled into a broader budget reform measure. Again, we need to design corruption opportunities out of the budget system.

The President should push Congress for practical reforms with visible results, not only in fighting corruption but, more importantly, in crafting the national budget. And these reforms must lead to tangible benefits, positive outcomes that can be seen.

Focus on transparency in fund releases and in budget bicameral meetings, and revert all unreported “savings” to the General Fund. Limit spending under a reenacted budget to essentials, and ban “unprogrammed” funds. These are all low-hanging fruits.

Then, in drafting the budget, use clearer fund categories and project-specific accountability, and remove lump-sum ambiguity. Then institutionalize people’s participation and access to the budget process. While these may be more difficult to implement, they are all workable solutions. But they need to be backed by the political will to reform the budget process.