THE Philippines’ 2025 national budget, amounting to P6.326 trillion, has sparked significant discussion due to its allocations and the implications for various sectors. President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. signed the 2025 national budget into law on Dec. 30, 2024. The approved budget amounts to P6.33 trillion ($109.2 billion), marking a 10-percent increase in government spending. The education sector received the largest allocation of P1.053 trillion, followed closely by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) with P1.034 trillion. On the other hand, the military’s modernization program budget was set at P35 billion, lower than the initially proposed P50 billion. In addition, Marcos vetoed over P194 billion in proposed spending, including approximately P26 billion worth of DPWH projects and P168 billion in unprogrammed appropriations, citing inconsistencies with the administration’s priority programs.
Allegations of misallocations
Nevertheless, critics and many Filipinos have expressed significant concerns regarding the 2025 national budget, labeling it potentially the most corrupt in the country’s history due to several factors, most particularly the allegations of misallocations and anomalies. Former finance officials and civil society groups have pointed out irregularities in budget allocation. For instance, substantial cuts to essential services, such as the Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (PhilHealth) defunding, have raised alarm about the government’s spending priorities. Note that PhilHealth was allocated zero subsidy in the 2025 budget. Marcos justified this by citing that PhilHealth has substantial reserve funds. However, this decision has raised concerns about the sustainability of health care services and the potential impact on universal health coverage.
On the other hand, despite education receiving the largest allocation of P1.053 trillion, concerns persist about the adequacy of funding for critical programs. Notably, the Department of Education’s (DepEd) computerization program faced a P10-billion cut, raising questions about the government’s commitment to enhancing digital literacy and modernizing educational infrastructure.
Furthermore, analysts argue and perceive that the 2025 national budget is anti-poor precisely because, accordingly, the budget’s allocations and provisions disproportionately disadvantage marginalized populations. The reallocation of funds away from social services, such as health and education, is seen as neglecting the needs of the poor, exacerbating existing inequalities.
On another note, the Office of the Vice President, led by Sara Duterte, experienced a significant budget cut of nearly two-thirds, reducing the allocation to P733 million. Some analysts have interpreted this reduction as indicative of political persecution of Duterte and show the political dynamics within the administration, especially considering Duterte’s earlier resignation as education secretary and the potential implications for the upcoming 2028 presidential elections.
Constitutional concerns
Indeed, all these issues have led to widespread criticism, with many viewing the 2025 national budget as a manifestation of systemic corruption and a deviation from the government’s commitment to transparency and equitable development. Likewise, some critics of the Marcos administration even cited and raised concerns about possible constitutional issues in the 2025 budget, particularly regarding the reallocation of funds and adherence to mandated spending for essential services. These concerns highlight the need for transparency and strict compliance with legal standards in the budgetary process.
Some of the potential violations of the Constitution in the 2025 national budget, as raised by legal experts and lawmakers, include the violation of the mandated allocation for specific sectors. The Constitution mandates minimum budgetary allocations for certain sectors, notably education, as stipulated in Article XIV, Section 5(5) of the Constitution. It requires the government to prioritize education, with the highest percentage of the budget allocated to this sector. While the DepEd received the highest allocation, cuts in critical programs (e.g., the P10-billion reduction for the DepEd’s computerization program) may be seen as undermining the intent of prioritization.
Another issue is the potential misalignment of public funds with national priorities. Under Article VI, Section 25(5), the Constitution prohibits the inclusion of “riders” in appropriations bills — items unrelated to the general purpose of the appropriation. Critics have flagged the inclusion of discretionary items or allocations for questionable programs as potentially unconstitutional, as these may not align with the overall budget’s declared priorities. For instance, large budget allocations for certain offices, while essential services face reductions, might breach this principle.
Also, there is the issue of reallocation of previously authorized funds. The Constitution requires Congress to approve any reallocation of funds, particularly if the original purpose was mandated by law. Reports of substantial reallocations, or “vetoed projects” being redirected elsewhere without congressional approval could be unconstitutional. This raises concerns about executive overreach and improper realignments.
The most important issue is the zero allocation for PhilHealth subsidies. Under Article XIII, Section 11, the Constitution obligates the state to adopt an integrated and comprehensive approach to health development, ensuring access to essential health services. The zero allocation for the PhilHealth’s subsidy, justified by the government as relying on its reserves, might violate the Constitution’s mandate for ensuring accessible health care, particularly for indigents and vulnerable sectors.
Likewise, the lack of transparency and accountability in budgetary decisions is another critical concern. The Constitution emphasizes the right of the people to information on matters of public concern (Article III, Section 7). In this regard, there are allegations of opaque budgetary practices, such as the sudden reduction in the vice president’s budget, or the approval of unsubstantiated line items, which could breach the public’s right to transparency and accountability in government spending.
Furthermore, the allegations of pork barrel-like allocations are one of the most contentious issues in relation to the 2025 national budget. Under Article VI, Section 29(1), public funds must only be appropriated for public purposes. Allegations of “pork barrel” allocations, discretionary funds that benefit specific lawmakers’ constituencies, have historically been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (e.g., the Priority Development Assistance Fund, or PDAF). Similar allocations, if found in the budget, could face legal challenges.
Indeed, in many ways, these potential violations of the Constitution highlight the need for careful scrutiny of the budget to ensure compliance with constitutional mandates. Critics argue that the allocation process must align with principles of equity, transparency, accountability and adherence to national priorities as enshrined in the Constitution.
Conclusion
In summary, while the 2025 national budget reflects the administration’s priorities in infrastructure and defense, it has sparked debate over reductions in essential services, potential constitutional issues and the sustainability of its economic assumptions. These factors underscore the importance of a balanced and transparent approach to fiscal policy to ensure that budget allocations effectively address the nation’s needs and promote equitable development.
Source: The Manila Times
https://www.manilatimes.net/2025/01/04/opinion/columns/is-2025-national-budget-the-most-corrupt-in-ph-history/2029805
