The debate surrounding the 2026 national budget has been framed as a question of whether funding was shifted from flood control to farm-to-market roads. That framing understates the real problem. The deeper issue is that significant budget increases were approved outside the National Expenditure Program (NEP)—often without identified projects, without programs of work, and without prior technical planning. These additions did not originate from the Executive’s development agenda. They emerged during legislative deliberations, transforming the national budget from a planning instrument into a vehicle for discretionary spending.
The NEP is not a mere proposal. It represents the Executive’s fully programmed, agency-vetted spending plan. Projects included in the NEP have undergone technical review, alignment with sectoral priorities, and preliminary costing. When funding increases appear outside the NEP, they are, by definition, non-programmed. They enter the budget without project locations, scope, or detailed designs at the time of approval. This distinction is fundamental to fiscal governance.
Public reporting on the 2026 budget confirms that allocations for farm-to-market roads increased from ₱16 billion in the NEP to ₱33 billion after bicameral deliberations, more than doubling the original proposal (Philstar, December 2025, “Bicam Oks 2026 National Budget”; IBCTV13, December 2025, “DA Gets Higher Farm-to-Market Road Budget”; Department of Agriculture, December 2025, Budget Briefing on 2026 Appropriations). At the same time, flood control allocations were reduced following public controversy over irregular and poorly implemented projects (Philippine News Agency, December 2025, “Flood Control Budget Trimmed After Project Controversy”).
The concern is not simply the change in categories, but the method. One large, politically vulnerable infrastructure line item was replaced by another, both prone to weak safeguards when projects are not identified in advance.
Congress and successive administrations have consistently prioritized flood control projects and farm-to-market roads. These categories are critical in principle. In practice, however, they have become the safest political investments: divisible into small components, repeatable every budget cycle, and conveniently insulated from sustained accountability. Their fragmented nature makes them easy to insert, easy to repackage, and difficult to audit as coherent programs—particularly when projects are approved without full identification at the time of budgeting.
It must be stated clearly and repeatedly for public understanding:
Items not included in the NEP were not proposed by the Executive.
They were not agency-initiated.
They were not supported by completed programs of work.
They entered the budget through legislative insertion.
This matters because projects that are unidentified at approval are identified only after the budget is enacted. Instead of projects driving funding, funding is approved first and projects are found later. This reverses sound public financial management and opens the door to political discretion in project selection and implementation.
Media coverage during the 2026 budget deliberations documented concerns over the absence of detailed project lists and readiness for the expanded farm-to-market road budget (GMA News Online, December 2025, “Hiked Budget for Farm-to-Market Roads Hurdles Bicam”; The Manila Times, December 2025, “Questions Raised on Farm-to-Market Road Allocations”). These reports consistently noted that many projects had yet to be fully identified or vetted at the time of approval.
From a fiscal management perspective, this practice has direct economic consequences. Infrastructure spending is intended to generate multiplier effects, strengthen legitimate industry, and support long-term growth. When funds are channeled into non-programmed, politically inserted projects, the legitimate construction industry does not benefit.
Large, technically capable firms—those able to deliver complex infrastructure such as railways, ports, and major transport systems—require clear project scope, predictable procurement pipelines, and transparent bidding conditions. Fragmented and hastily identified projects do not meet these requirements. Instead, such spending patterns favor small, often politically connected or technically weak contractors, whose business model depends more on access than performance. The result is predictable: lower-quality infrastructure, repeated repairs, delayed completion, and continued budget drain.
Corruption does not stimulate the economy. Spending detached from planning and technical readiness does not create durable productive capacity. Instead, it converts public infrastructure investment into a fiscal liability rather than a development tool—an analytical conclusion consistent with long-standing principles of fiscal governance and development economics.
These risks are compounded by the continued reliance on unprogrammed appropriations. By design, unprogrammed funds are conditional and secondary, meant to be released only after programmed appropriations and only when specific revenue conditions are met. Yet investigative reporting and audit-related analysis have documented persistent weaknesses in the management and release of unprogrammed funds, particularly when used to finance projects not included in the NEP (PCIJ, November 2025, “Unprogrammed Funds and the Budget’s Grey Areas”; The Manila Times, November 2025, “Unprogrammed Appropriations Under Scrutiny”).
Read together, these practices form a structural pattern:
Legislative insertions create non-programmed items.
Project identification is deferred until after enactment.
Oversight weakens during implementation.
Accountability erodes.
This is not an isolated procedural flaw. It is a recurring pattern that signals systemic failure in fiscal governance. When the budget process allows unidentified projects to be funded ahead of programmed ones, the rules cease to protect public interest.
The controversy over the 2026 budget is therefore not about choosing between flood control and farm-to-market roads. It is about whether public spending is guided by planning or by discretion, by economic rationale or by political convenience.
A budget without planning is not a development strategy. It is an invitation to waste, leakage, and long-term economic damage. Restoring discipline—by enforcing the primacy of the NEP, rejecting unidentified projects, and curbing the misuse of unprogrammed appropriations—is essential if public spending is to support growth rather than undermine it. Without such reforms, the country risks deepening an internally generated economic crisis, driven not by external shocks, but by deliberate distortions in how public money is planned, approved, and spent.
Author’s Note on Sources and Analysis
Factual statements in this article are based on cross-verified national media reports and official government briefings cited in-text. Economic and structural conclusions are the author’s analytical judgments and should be read as policy analysis, not as allegations of criminal wrongdoing.
(Paul Chua, PhD, holds doctoral degrees in Fiscal Management and Peace and Security, and a master’s degree in National Security Administration. He has completed executive programs in several countries, specializing in transport, migration, urban planning, and public policy, with emphasis on governance, innovation, and integrity.)
Originally published by The Daily Chronicle.