MANILA, Philippines – Former senior government officials and groups of legal experts and leaders of the medical community are calling on President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to correct the issues in the proposed 2025 General Appropriations Act (GAA).

In an open letter to Marcos and the country’s legislators published on Saturday, December 28, former senior government officials and leaders of the International Center for Innovation, Transformation and Excellence in Governance (INCITEGov) said they were “deeply troubled by the gross misallocations” in the government’s proposed 2025 budget.

“We are concerned that line-item vetos will not be enough to rectify the problematic priorities embedded in next year’s budget,” the letter read.

“We therefore urgently appeal to President Marcos and our legislators to revamp the proposed budget and restore the funds that have been unjustly removed from vital sectors such as health, education, agriculture, social protection, and climate change adaptability.”

Among those that received criticism from the public were the lawmakers’ decision to cut the budget of the Department of Education (DepEd) and their move to completely cut government subsidy for the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth). (FACT CHECK: PhilHealth member benefits to continue despite zero subsidy in 2025)

The chief executive was supposed to sign the GAA last December 20 but postponed it to “allow more time for a rigorous and exhaustive review.”

The President said he expects to restore the budget to the “same shape” proposed by his government. Marcos is now expected to sign the budget on Monday, December 30.

Review unprogrammed appropriations, pork barrel

The letter — which was signed by former Department of Budget and Management secretary Florencio Abad and former DepEd secretary Edilberto de Jesus, among others — also called on Marcos to review the budget of big-ticket infrastructure projects.

Instead of getting budget allocations, lawmakers have listed the projects under the unprogrammed appropriations. This essentially means that these projects do not have a direct funding source. (READ: The unprogrammed funds issue in the Marcos admin’s 2024 budget, simplified)

“This will lead to undue delays in the construction and completion of such projects — to the detriment of Filipinos,” the letter read.

“By contrast, the substantial allocations for several infrastructure items (specifically in the Department of Public Works and Highways) are unmistakably pork barrel in nature, prioritized at the expense of critical essential services, and are particularly alarming.”

The former officials and leaders pointed out that this would lead to corruption and “political favoritism.”

Recalling the state’s obligation

Meanwhile, Abad, along with former PhilHealth officials Alexander Padilla and Antonio Jamon Jr., University of the Philippines College of Law professor Dante Gatmaytan, National Academy of Science and Technology’s Dr. Antonio Dans, Action for Economic Reforms president Jessica Reyes-Cantos, and Philippine Medical Association president Hector Santos Jr., also wrote to Marcos — this time, appealing for the chief executive to review the zero subsidy allocation for the state insurer.

Lawmakers have defended the move, with some pointing out that PhilHealth also failed to efficiently make the most out of its resources. The state insurer was faced with many controversies this year because of its idle funds — the Department of Finance earlier this year had also ordered PhilHealth to remit almost P90 billion worth of excess funds, putting its management in the spotlight. (READ: Supreme Court issues TRO vs further transfer of PhilHealth funds)

Health Secretary Teodoro Herbosa, who also chairs the PhilHealth board of directors, said that the insurer will continue to provide services in 2025 despite not getting subsidies from the government.

However, the groups have pointed out that the government subsidy was supposed to cover the premiums of indirect contributors — the indigent, senior citizens, and persons with disability. They also noted that the move was unconstitutional under the Universal Health Care Act.

“We would also like to emphasize that it is a matter of fairness, Mr. President, that the government’s share in PhilHealth’s premiums for all indirect contributors be appropriated to PhilHealth as mandated by law,” the other letter read.

“The government should not leave the burden of funding PhilHealth to direct contributors (the workers and self-paying members) and the employers that shoulder part of their workers’ premiums.” – Rappler.com