By Manila Bulletin Newsroom
Published Sep 1, 2026 12:05 am
The start of deliberations on the proposed P7.2-trillion 2027 national budget comes at a particularly sensitive moment. There is something profoundly ironic in the spectacle of Cabinet secretaries having to assure Congress that they will conduct lifestyle checks, enforce a one-strike policy and protect public funds from abuse.
Department of Public Works and Highways Secretary Vince Dizon has told lawmakers that the agency is continuously conducting lifestyle checks, in coordination with the Office of the Ombudsman, and has adopted a one-strike policy against verified wrongdoing. He has also declared that the proposed 2027 DPWH budget contains no “leadership fund” and no allocations based on the controversial parametric formula.
Should this not be a given? Public officials do not need to be reminded that government money belongs to the people. They do not need extraordinary instructions to exercise integrity. And taxpayers should not have to depend on the personal assurances of Cabinet secretaries that billions in appropriations will not become instruments for corruption, political patronage or private enrichment.
Yet this is where we find ourselves.
Commitments to allocate and disburse public funds judiciously are welcome. But they should be regarded as the minimum, not the achievement. The bigger question is: Why did the system ever permit arrangements that made such assurances necessary?
The answer must involve not only the Executive branch but Congress itself.
The national budget is where government priorities become actual expenditures. It is also where political influence can be converted into projects, allocations and contracts. The revelations and allegations surrounding the previous DPWH budgets have exposed how vulnerable this process can become when institutional safeguards are weakened or circumvented.
Congress therefore cannot simply demand assurances from Cabinet secretaries and then proceed with business as usual. Every proposed project must have a demonstrable public purpose, technical justification, proper costing and transparent implementation.
Most important, Congress must be prepared to subject itself to the same transparency standards it demands from the Executive.
There should be no privileged category of public money. If a government employee must justify an unexplained increase in wealth, why should a politically connected contractor, intermediary or beneficiary be treated differently? If a DPWH official faces dismissal for a verified offense, why should political influence provide a shield to anyone who participates in manipulating public expenditures?
A genuine one-strike policy should apply to corruption wherever it is found; it must be enforced without fear or favor.
They should be supported by systematic examination of Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, procurement records, beneficial ownership, project costs and actual project accomplishments. Technology should make it possible to connect the money trail from appropriation to implementation.
Where wrongdoing is established, accountability must not end with administrative sanctions. Public funds must be recovered. Cases must be prosecuted. Those responsible must face the consequences prescribed by law.
Congress must also be reminded that the people are not merely watching how the Executive and the government bureaucracy spends their money. They are also demanding accountability from their representatives and senators in judiciously allocating public funds.
The 2027 budget must, therefore, become a test of institutional integrity. It is a litmus test on how the citizenry regards their government’s capacity to render genuine public service that addresses basic needs adequately. It demands transparency, accountability and performance.
