THE ATENEO SCHOOL of Governance asked the Independent Commission on Infrastructure to also investigate the huge budget cuts and diversions that took place in since 2023 without any protestation and intervention from the executive.
In a statement, the school urged the commission’s inclusion probe of former Senate President Francis Escudero, former Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez, the Senate and House chairpersons and vice chairpersons of the finance and appropriations committees and their technical staff, as well as “little president” Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin and members of the Development Budget Coordinating Committee, Politiko reported.
PUBLIC OUTRAGE
This, amid a public outrage over rampant corruption scandal that is rocking the country, as shown in the numerous rallies in major cities and in the EDSA People Power Monument, Luneta and Camp Aguinaldo– among divergent economic, political, religious and social classes last Sept. 21, the 53rd anniversary of Martial Law by the late dictator, Ferdinand Marcos Sr.
It also insisted on a closer look into the Commission on Audit “for its failure to ensure responsible use of public funds.”
Its statement bore the title “Complicity in Corruption: Ateneo Calls out OP, House, Senate over ‘Exponential Budget Spike since 2016.”
The school earlier flagged a huge budget allocation for the flood management program of the Department of Public Works and Highways under the 2025 spending plan. The DPWH budget has so far surpassed the budget for education in violation of the Constitutional mandate.
“Greater role and discretion are given to politicians in the selection of projects, beneficiaries and amounts of assistance and visibility in the distribution of the same. Social services are headed towards becoming a matter of utang na loob, not a matter of right.”
POLITICIANS’ DISCRETION
“We therefore ask – Are flood control projects (which constitute 22 percent of the DPWH budget) more important than addressing the 160,000 classroom backlog and the dilapidated condition of 70 percent of existing classrooms?” the school asked.
The group also sounded the alarm over major cuts to agencies like DSWD, PhilHealth, Health, and Education, while billions were diverted to cash dole outs such as AKAP, AICS, MAIFP, and TUPAD.
In 2025, they said, the budget for these programs totaled ₱130 billion. Greater role and discretion are given to politicians in the selection of projects, beneficiaries and amounts of assistance and visibility in the distribution of the same. Social services are headed towards becoming a matter of utang na loob, not a matter of right.
BALLOONING BUDGET
Filipino taxpayers are footing a rapidly growing bill to sustain the country’s top leaders, with the Office of the President’s budget ballooning by 461 percent since 2016, according to Ateneo’s report published by Bilyonaryo.
“Why was there an exponential increase in the budget of these agencies? How much of these are under oversight scrutiny, and how much are confidential funds?” With this, the Ateneo group challenged the administration to get serious “in weeding out corruption … (and) carry out an institutional scrutiny up to the highest echelon of power.”
The presidential office will cost ₱15.8 billion this year, up from ₱2.8 billion at the end of the Aquino administration in 2016.
That translates to ₱43.4 million per day in taxpayer funding — a level critics say underscores how governance has become more expensive while household incomes lag inflation.
The rise is not confined to the presidency. The House of Representatives’ budget has jumped 280 percent since 2016 to ₱33.7 billion, while the Senate’s allocation nearly tripled to ₱13.9 billion.
The Office of the Vice President grew more modestly, up 47 percent to ₱733 million.
Critics say the exponential growth in funding for Malacañang, the Senate and the House squeezes resources for essential programs in health, education and social protection.
The report also flagged ₱17.3 billion diverted to the House, ₱5 billion to the President’s office, and ₱1 billion to the Senate — raising questions about oversight and the opaque use of confidential and intelligence funds.