Marcos Cuts ₱92.5B From the Budget. But If Filipinos Don’t Benefit, What Was Really Saved?

When President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. signed the ₱6.793-trillion 2026 national budget, one decision stood out. He vetoed nearly ₱92.5 billion in Unprogrammed Appropriations, saying the items were unnecessary and lacked clear justification. It was framed as discipline. As reform. As proof that public money would no longer be treated casually.

Marcos said these funds were not blank checks and should only be released under clear conditions, like excess revenues or new loans. Senate leaders welcomed the move. The message was reassuring. The budget was leaner. Pork was trimmed.

But once the headlines fade, a harder truth remains. A budget, whether cut or approved, means nothing if it does not reach Filipinos. And when it fails, it is always the poor who pay the price.

What was cut sounds right, but it also sounds familiar

According to the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and reports from Malacañang, the following categories were struck out:

• Infrastructure projects without sufficient feasibility studies or lacking clear funding sources.
• Flood control programs flagged for possible duplication with existing DPWH projects.
• Social welfare allocations that allowed discretionary distribution by politicians, which Marcos said could encourage patronage politics.
• Agriculture and irrigation projects not covered by revenue-generating measures.
• Health and education funds inserted without corresponding revenue sources.
• Local government support programs that overlapped with existing national initiatives.
• Miscellaneous allocations that were not tied to specific, measurable outcomes.

DBM said the veto strengthens transparency. Senate President Vicente Sotto III even described the budget as “squeaky clean.”

These are exactly the kinds of allocations that raise red flags year after year. But that is also the problem. If these issues are so easy to identify now, why do they keep appearing in every budget cycle?

Unprogrammed Appropriations have long existed in a gray zone. They depend on revenues that may or may not come. In theory, they offer flexibility. In reality, they often become holding areas for projects that escape early scrutiny and resurface later.

Cutting them looks decisive. But it also exposes how routine the problem has become.

Cutting funds is easy. Making them work is harder

Vetoing unprogrammed funds is the safest kind of budget reform. These allocations are conditional. Removing them does not immediately stop a project on the ground. It does not anger a specific community overnight. The political cost is low.

The harder question is what happens to the rest of the budget.

Patronage and waste do not live only in unprogrammed items. They live in regular appropriations, lump sums, and agency discretion buried deep in the budget. They live in projects that exist on paper but never improve daily life.

This is where Filipinos have learned to be skeptical. Every year, budgets grow. Every year, promises are made. And every year, many communities remain flooded, underserved, or ignored.

A cut does not automatically mean savings for the people. An inclusion does not automatically mean help. When money is poorly planned, delayed, duplicated, or politicized, it is lost either way.

And when money is lost, it is not the powerful who suffer first. It is the poor Filipino waiting for services that never arrive.

Why the real issue is not the veto, but the outcome

One detail in the veto stands out. Flood control projects were flagged for duplication. That alone should give pause.

Every rainy season, Filipinos ask the same question. With billions spent on flood control, why do streets still flood? Why do homes still go underwater? Why does relief come late, if at all?

Cutting questionable flood control items is a step forward. But it also highlights how often money has been spent without results. The problem is not just corruption. It is failure to deliver.

This is where your point matters most. Every peso in the budget, whether approved or vetoed, is wasted if it does not serve Filipinos. A clean budget means nothing if lives do not improve. Fiscal discipline means little if it does not translate into safer roads, better schools, accessible health care, and real protection for the vulnerable.

Marcos has drawn a line by vetoing ₱92.5 billion. That line raises expectations.

Will agencies now be forced to plan better? Will projects finally be designed to work, not just to pass? Will next year’s budget show fewer vague items and more visible results?

Because in the end, Filipinos will not judge this budget by how much was cut. They will judge it by how much actually helped them. And if the poor remain the last priority, then every budget, cut or approved, will still be a loss.

Image from RMTV