THE session at the Provincial Board (PB) to finalize Cebu’s budget for next year involves questions of legislative independence and the legal limits of executive power.
The PB approved the 2026 budget ordinance on second reading, but the redirection of P14 million from Gov. Pamela Baricuatro’s program indicates a rift between the body and the governor’s office.
What happened
During its final regular session for 2025 on Monday, Dec. 22, the PB moved forward with the 2026 annual budget but included a significant amendment — it voted to transfer P14 million originally intended for the Cebu People’s Action Center (CPAC) to the Office of the Governor.
Before the deliberation began, Vice Gov. Glenn Anthony Soco, the presiding officer, issued a firm defense of the 17th Sangguniang Panlalawigan’s autonomy.
“The work of the committee on appropriations was undertaken with diligence, objectivity, and strict adherence to the law, free from influence or partisanship,” Soco said.
While Soco did not specifically mention CPAC in his speech, he said the PB was “not opposed to any proposals” brought before the PB. It remains unconfirmed if Soco’s remarks were a direct response to a recent critical Facebook post by Gov. Pamela Baricuatro regarding the program, as the vice governor did not grant interviews to reporters following the session.
Why it matters
The dispute centers on the legal framework required to fund government entities. Ex-officio PB Member Celestino Martinez, chairman of the committee on budget and appropriations, clarified that the amendments were a matter of statutory compliance rather than a rejection of the program’s goals.
“We had to make certain amendments to the proposals because we felt the funds could be used for better purposes,” Martinez said.
The committee determined that CPAC is currently classified as a program rather than a formal office because it was not created through a legislative ordinance. It currently operates under the Provincial Information Office. When addressed regarding reports that PB “defunded” the governor’s initiative, Martinez clarified the legal distinction.
“I would not say defunding because in the first place di man sab gyud siya ma-fundingan (it could not be funded in the first place),” Martinez said, referring to the lack of a legal budget line for a non-office entity.
The bigger picture
This conflict reflects a broader pattern in local governance where executive-led initiatives — often created quickly via executive order — clash with the slower, more formal requirements of legislative oversight.
Baricuatro has been a vocal critic of the PB’s stance, describing CPAC as a vital, volunteer-driven initiative designed to improve service delivery to vulnerable sectors.
“To the PB: your actions on CPAC’s budget will be judged by the people you serve,” Baricuatro said in a statement. “If your decisions hinder our ability to reach out and help, you will have to answer to your constituents.”
Despite the political friction, Assistant Provincial Administrator Alwin Empaces noted that essential services linked to the program, such as social welfare and disaster response, would continue through existing departments, suggesting the bureaucracy may absorb the impact of the legislative shift.
What to watch
The amended budget ordinance will now be transmitted to the budget office before returning to the PB for its third and final reading, tentatively scheduled for Jan. 5. Martinez noted that this January timeline would not hamper Capitol operations, as the Province can operate under the previous year’s budget if necessary until final approval.
The central question moving forward is whether the executive branch will move to formalize CPAC through an ordinance to satisfy the PB’s legal requirements. How the governor and the PB navigate this disagreement will set the tone for the 2026 fiscal year and determine whether other executive-led programs will face similar legal hurdles. / CDF