BUDGET WOES

December 22, 2024 Opinion

A budget as defined by Merriam – Webster Dictionary usually refers to a. a statement of the financial position of an administration (as of a nation) for a definite period of time based on estimates of expenditures during the period and proposals for financing them, b. a plan for the coordination of resources and expenditures, and c. the amount of money that is available for, required for, or assigned to a particular purpose. Take your pick from the definitions provided above but when we say budget it simply means the judicious use of available money for a relevant objective within a finite period of time.

If the use of the available money is not based on good or sound judgment then the administration, the government or the nation for which the budget stems from is imperiled. A budget crafted in violation of laws is dangerous and opens the door for the abuse of power. This appears to be the growing sentiment and perception with respect to the final version of House Bill No. 10800 or the proposed Php 6.352 trillion 2025 national budget which was approved by the
Bicameral Conference Committee just recently.

This is also perhaps the reason why in a sudden turnaround President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. came out with a statement that he was “postponing the signing of the approved national budget for 2025 because of the ‘many
changes’ to the funding requests of various departments”. The President’s sister Senator Imee Marcos, on the other hand, was even more adamant and forceful against the approval of the 2025 General Appropriations Act calling it a ‘very bad budget’ because of certain controversial funding inclusions in the budget.

Why the sudden concern for the 2025 budget, and why the sudden reluctance by the President to immediately sign it
into law? Well for one there is that issue of the GAA 2025 allegedly violating certain provisions of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution, the basic law of the land, particularly the mandate on prioritizing education and health. This was exactly one of the reasons why Senator Risa Hontiveros voted ‘no’ in the approval of the Bicameral Conference
Committee Report on House Bill 10800 or the 2025 General Appropriations Bill.

In her explanation on why she voted ‘no’ she said, “I voted “Yes” to the Senate version of the 2025 national budget because I was confident that this budget would provide sufficient funding for our most critical and life-saving programs. However, the bicam version of the national budget is deeply concerning because it drastically reduces funding for essential sectors like public health and education. One of the most alarming changes in the bicam version is the “zero state subsidy” in 2025 for PhilHealth.

This move is blatantly inconsistent with current laws: the Universal Health Care Act explicitly mandates an annual premium subsidy for indirect contributors in the General Appropriations Act, and the Sin Tax Reform Act requires annual allocations to the National Health Insurance Program from sin tax revenues.” It would seem that during the meeting of the Bicameral Conference Committee, whose job is supposed to reconcile the differing versions of the
proposed budget coming from the House of Representatives and the Senate, alterations were made that became grossly inconsistent with the original version as approved in the Senate.

The more troubling aspect of this whole thing is that apparently the bicameral conference committee, in removing the state subsidy for PhilHealth, made an act in violation of the Universal Healthcare law which provides for an annual premium subsidy for indirect contributors in the GAA as well as the Sin Tax Reform Act requiring annual
allocations of money to the National Health Insurance Program emanating from sin tax revenues. This means that the law itself requires that the Philhealth or the National Health Insurance Program should be funded or subsidized yearly by the government.

Not only that but in the explanation of Senator Hontiveros on why she voted against the bicameral conference committee report, she likewise cited that the budget of the Department of Health was cut by Php 37.59 billion in the version of the bicameral conference committee as well as the budget of the Department of Education which was slashed by Php 15.17 billion and the Commission on Higher Education which lost Php 11.77 billion. In foregoing the immediate signing of the national budget for 2025 the President may have realized that the clamor for a closer look into the budget is needed in order to come up with a more appropriate and judicious budget. One that would truly serve the interests of the Filipino people and provide substantial benefit to the nation.