WHERE YOUR PESO GOES: Unprogrammed appropriations and why they matter

Every peso that Filipinos pay in taxes funds the General Appropriations Act (GAA), the national budget. It serves as a map that shows where the priorities of an administration truly lie: whether it will focus on improving education, infrastructure, or the economy. 

Despite mounting scrutiny over questionable expenditures in the last year, the Palace is confident that the 2026 GAA is the cleanest budget ever in history, leaving the public to wonder how their taxes will be truly spent.

Who gets what in 2026

The national budget for 2026 is set at P6.793 trillion after last year’s P6.326 trillion, now prioritizing investments that will benefit the Filipinos head-on. The President is determined to restore public trust using the 2026 GAA, with the promise to ensure the security of public funds from patronage and politics.

With a share of more than P1.34 trillion, Education received the largest allocation, which primarily aims to fund new teaching and non-teaching positions alike. Though tainted by the flood control scandal, the public works sector had the second-highest allocation at P530.9 billion.

Meanwhile, the health sector acquired an amount of P448.125 billion, the biggest portion in Philippine history, with an addition of P1 billion to the Department of Health’s Zero Balance Billing Program. 

As for agriculture, P297 billion was given to modernize supply systems and increase support for farmers and fisherfolk. Social services received a slightly lower allocation of P270 billion, directed towards inclusive and sustained growth of the country.

Yet, these figures only tell part of the story, as the budget still contains Unprogrammed Appropriations (UA).

Hidden in plain sight

UAs refer to untouched funds for unnamed programs until the government reaches its revenue target or has the necessary foreign funds for them, giving way for large sums to be released with the possibility of limited oversight. 

Despite this, Senate Committee on Finance chairperson Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian is also confident that the 2026 budget is corruption-free, even with the presence of UAs. 

“Kanya-kanyang pananaw kung ito ay maayos, ito ay hindi maayos, but that’s a policy issue. Puwede tayong mag-debate sa policy issue ng buong araw o buong linggo pero ang importante walang debate dito sa korupsiyon. Dahil itong budget na ito sinigurado namin na corruption-free at hindi puwede maabuso,” Gatchalian said.

This, however, contrasts with his position in 2025, when he himself described UAs as a form of pork barrel, which allowed officials to transfer funds to random projects that were not identified.

“Hindi natin nakikita ito because wala hong line item. Parang naging pork barrel ho ito ng lump sum, that we need to take a look… Usec Toledo, I think in light of kung anong nangyayari ngayon, ang DBM, pag-isipang mabuti itong unprogrammed funds dahil nagiging pork barrel ito ng DBM eh. Sa totoo lang,”

The President ultimately vetoed ₱92.5 billion under the UAs after facing criticism. Still, it was merely denoted as pampalubag-loob by ACT Teachers Party List Representative Antonio Tinio, Gabriela Party List Representative Sarah Elago, and Kabataan Party List Representative Renee Co.

But assessing the ‘cleanliness’ of the budget itself begins with taking a look at what earlier budgets reveal and how the UAs have been used before.

History repeats itself

After the vetoed appropriations, the UAs stand at P150.9 billion, comparatively lower than the P363 billion in the 2025 budget. This drop in UA, though, does not eliminate concerns about its role in budget execution, especially when such allocations have been linked to vague yet immediate insertions of funding.

For instance, Wawao Builders, a contractor tagged in the irregular flood control projects, was not specified to receive any funding for its project under the National Expenditure Program (NEP) or the GAA. But it did receive a payment of P1.5 billion, only, through the available UAs in the 2025 budget.

This pattern is not unique to 2025, though. In the 2024 budget that held P731 billion worth of UAs, 81% of the Department of Transportation’s budget was put as unprogrammed, including high-priority programs, such as the Metro Manila Subway and MRT LINE 4 Project – meaning their implementation was uncertain despite being labeled as priority projects.

. 

Supposedly, UAs are ‘standby’ funding for urgent needs. Yet, this allows smaller programs like the Wawao Builders’ flood control project to receive immediate funding, while flagship projects that are already specified remain delayed.

2023’s UAs would hate not to be acknowledged, too, as the administration’s P807 billion unprogrammed funds paved the way for the P600 million worth of anomalous flood control projects in Bulacan to be planned and implemented despite not being itemized in the approved budget.

Now in 2026, it should be clear that a smaller UA does not necessarily mean a cleaner budget. The true problem lies in who controls the funds and whose interests they serve.

The less I know, the better?

Budget deliberations of the bicameral conference committee have always been taken behind closed doors, following tradition. This is one of the reasons why accusations of budget alterations fail to bear proof, as such absence of transparency prevents the public from seeing how their peso is used.

2023’s UAs proposed more than P588 billion, but the Congress gave the executive branch an amount of P807 billion. The 2024 UAs requested P281 billion, but were given a generous fund of P731 billion. 2025 was no different, as the President asked for a sum of P158 billion but was granted P531 billion by the bicam – all of which were done under secrecy.

However, tradition was soon stopped following the degradation of public trust, as the 2026 GAA is the first budget to have been livestreamed – an attempt that made budget deliberations more transparent.

Power overrules?

The existence of UAs, though, is said to be unconstitutional as the Constitution only allows Congress to approve budgets with clearly identified funding sources. 

Unprogrammed funds grant excessive discretion to the executive as it permits the President too much power to move funds, making it a tool that can obscure how public funds are actually spent. 

In the end, even a smaller UA is not a guarantee that its spending will be cleaner and corruption-free. Until discretion is fully served, ‘cleaner’ budgets will just be a promise, not a reality.