PPP Party-list Representative Harold James Duterte has voiced strong concern over the administration’s recent decision to divert billions of pesos from the national government’s flood control budget to fund two social protection programs — the Assistance to Individuals in Crisis Situations (AICS) and the Tulong Panghanapbuhay sa Ating Disadvantaged/Displaced Workers (TUPAD).
In a statement released this week, Duterte said he was disappointed with how substantial allocations originally intended for infrastructure and disaster mitigation were realigned to cash assistance and short-term employment schemes.
“I express my disappointment over the President’s decision to realign substantial funds originally intended for flood control projects into programs such as AICS (Assistance to Individuals in Crisis Situations) and Tupad (Tulong Panghanapbuhay sa Ating Disadvantaged/Displaced Workers),” Duterte said.
He stressed that just two weeks ago, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. himself presented a list of possible reallocation items from the flood control budget that would have directly benefited fisherfolk and coastal communities — groups that are among the most vulnerable to flooding and climate-related disasters.
He clarified that his criticism is not aimed at AICS or Tupad, programs he described as important social safety nets, but at the missed opportunity to invest in long-term and transparent infrastructure solutions.
“Our fisherfolk deserve direct, accountable investment, not mere stop-gap relief after disaster strikes,” he added, emphasizing the need to ensure that every peso “truly reaches those who need it most — efficiently, transparently, and free from political interference.”
AICS and Tupad have long been part of the government’s social protection framework.
AICS, under the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), provides emergency support such as medical assistance, burial aid, food, transportation, and other forms of crisis relief. Tupad, implemented by the Department of Labor and Employment (Dole), offers short-term employment for displaced or underemployed workers, particularly in the aftermath of disasters or crises.
While these two programs are widely considered essential, their rapid expansion following the recent budget realignment has reignited debates about government priorities, accountability, and long-term disaster resilience.
The controversy began in early September 2025, when the House Committee on Appropriations’ subcommittee approved the transfer of around P46 billion from the Department of Public Works and Highways’ flood control budget for 2026. Of this amount, P32.6 billion was moved to AICS and P14.82 billion to Tupad.
As a result, the AICS budget ballooned from P26.9 billion to P59.5 billion, while Tupad’s allocation more than doubled from P12.1 billion to P26.9 billion.
Days later, President Marcos confirmed that nearly P36 billion from flood control projects would instead be redirected to DSWD programs, including AICS and the Sustainable Livelihood Program (SLP).
The DSWD welcomed the decision, stating that the added resources would allow them to serve more families in crisis, while critics in Congress questioned whether the agency had the capacity to manage such a sudden surge in funds.
The decision did not happen in a vacuum. The reallocation followed a series of high-profile exposés and investigations into alleged corruption and misuse of funds in flood control projects. During his State of the Nation Address on July 28, 2025, President Marcos vowed to root out corruption in the infrastructure sector, ordering an audit of flood control contracts and public disclosure of project details.
In early August, inspections revealed widespread irregularities, including substandard construction materials and repeated awarding of contracts to a handful of favored contractors. By September 2, congressional and executive investigations were underway, targeting contractors, engineers, and government officials allegedly involved in anomalous projects.
On September 8, Marcos announced that no new allocations would be made for flood control projects in the 2026 budget pending the outcome of these investigations. Two weeks later, on September 21, protests erupted nationwide as citizens demanded accountability and institutional reform. The next day, the House subcommittee formalized the budget reallocation, triggering fierce debates among lawmakers.
Proponents of the realignment argue that redirecting funds to AICS and Tupad reflects a shift in priorities toward urgent social needs. The DSWD maintained that the increased budget would enable it to respond more swiftly and effectively to emergencies. Supporters in Congress contend that during a time of fiscal constraint and persistent poverty, expanding social protection is a moral and political imperative.
Yet the move has been met with skepticism from various sectors. Lawmakers and watchdog groups warn that the expanded AICS budget could become vulnerable to politicization, especially in the run-up to future elections. Critics fear that politicians might exploit cash aid distribution as a tool for patronage, undermining the integrity of the programs.
Others lament that the Philippines — one of the most disaster-prone countries in the world — is sacrificing critical investments in flood mitigation infrastructure for short-term political gains.
The debate over the realignment reflects a deeper policy dilemma: how to balance immediate social needs with long-term infrastructure resilience.
Currently, Duterte reminds the government that the success of the government’s budget realignment will not be measured by the size of the aid distributed, but by whether it truly improves resilience, reduces vulnerability, and reaches those who need it most without political interference. DEF