WHEN senators recently flagged “suspicious” flood control projects in the proposed 2026 budget, they weren’t just talking about questionable numbers. They were pointing to weak spots in the budget process itself — where politics often collides with planning.
During Senate budget hearings, Senators Erwin Tulfo and Panfilo Lacson questioned why many flood control projects across different provinces had identical price tags, raising doubts about whether allocations were based on actual need or political maneuvering.
Even President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. admitted that “questionable” items slipped into the 2026 National Expenditure Program (NEP) and warned he may veto the entire 2026 budget if it fails to align with priorities.
The controversy has shone a spotlight on how the budget process really works — and why “insertions” and “line items” keep coming up whenever questions of waste and corruption arise.
“Suspicious” numbers
Here are the key figures that senators flagged:
15,000 line items – Total Department of Public Works and Highways’ (DPWH) flood-control entries in the NEP.
3,500 projects – Found in the National Capital Region, Ilocos, Cordillera Administrative Region, and Central Luzon with identical amounts.
88 projects – Each with a budget of P150 million.
373 projects – Each with a budget of P100 million.
Regional flood budgets questioned: Nueva Ecija, P3 billion; Kalinga, P2.7 billion; and Apayao, P2.2 billion
Disparity highlighted: Larger allocations went to the above provinces despite top flood-prone areas (Metro Manila, Pampanga, Bulacan, Cavite) receiving smaller shares.
Top 10 flood-prone provinces (per 2023–2050 National Adaptation Plan): Pampanga, Nueva Ecija, Pangasinan, Tarlac, Bulacan, Metro Manila, Maguindanao, North Cotabato, Oriental Mindoro, Ilocos Norte.
Reply
Department of Budget and Management (DMB) Secretary Amenah Pangandaman said the budget proposals came from DPWH.
She stressed that line-item checking is not within DBM’s mandate, and informed the Senate she already spoke with new DPWH Secretary Vince Dizon, who committed to review the flagged items.
What is NEP
The NEP is the President’s proposed budget, submitted to Congress within 30 days after the regular session opens. It contains the government’s planned spending for the coming year—from salaries of teachers to infrastructure like roads and flood control.
But the NEP is not yet law. It serves as the foundation for congressional debate. After revisions and approval, the NEP eventually becomes the General Appropriations Act, which is the legally binding national budget.
Journey of a peso: From proposal to project
According to the DBM, here’s how the budget travels from a government office’s request to a project on the ground:
Agency proposals. Government agencies like the DPWH draft project proposals.
Consolidation. The DBM reviews and compiles these proposals into the NEP. Officials say they can’t check every single line item in detail.
The President’s submission. The President submits the NEP to Congress. For 2026, Marcos admitted that NEP contains “questionable” allocations, particularly for flood control projects.
Congressional scrutiny. Lawmakers in the House and Senate hold hearings, where they can amend or insert projects. Critics say this is where political interests often override technical needs.
Bicameral Conference Committee. When the House and Senate versions differ, a “bicam” reconciles them. Insertions are often finalized here.
Presidential signature. Once approved by both chambers, the budget goes to the President, who can sign it into law or use a line-item veto to block specific projects.
What are ‘line items’ and ‘insertions’
Line items: The smallest units of the budget. Each specifies a project and its funding. They are meant to ensure transparency.
Insertions: New line items added by lawmakers during budget deliberations. While legal, they are controversial because they may serve political interests rather than national priorities.
Why it matters
The budget determines whether your community gets effective flood protection, functioning schools, or safe roads. When projects are added or priced for political reasons:
Taxpayers lose money to redundant or ineffective projects.
Vulnerable areas remain underserved, even when they face higher disaster risks.
Corruption risks rise, especially when identical costs suggest copy-paste proposals.
A simple analogy
Think of the NEP as a grocery list prepared by the head of the household (the President). It’s supposed to cover essentials.
But when Congress reviews it, members may sneak in extra items (insertions)—snacks, treats, or even duplicates. The result? The household budget gets skewed, leaving less money for the rice and vegetables everyone actually needs.
Looking ahead
Reform advocates suggest transparency portals to let citizens track every project in real time, needs-based allocations to ensure funding goes to the most at-risk areas and tighter rules on lump-sum and copy-paste project costs.
Marcos has already warned he could veto the 2026 budget if it remains riddled with questionable projects, signaling pressure for a cleaner system. / TPM / SunStar Philippines