In defense of the budget insertion

Few phrases in politics today carry as much baggage as “budget insertion.” It has become synonymous with corruption, conjuring images of pork barrel scams, shady deals, and self-serving lawmakers sneaking in pet projects for personal gain. Its mere mention invites suspicion — as if any senator or congressman who proposes an insertion in the national budget must be intending to pocket public funds. The perception has become so toxic that it almost led to another Senate coup. The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee lost momentum after Sen. Panfilo Lacson who was heading it said that “almost all” senators in the 19th Congress made insertions totaling over ₱100 billion. His statement reportedly ruffled feelings and threatened not only his leadership post but also of Senate President Vicente Sotto. Yet the uproar over the issue of insertions in the national budget overlooks an essential fact: making insertions is not a crime — it is part of the legislative process. As former Senate President Franklin Drilon has reminded critics, legislators are not mere rubber stamps for the executive branch. Proposing amendments to the General Appropriations Act is what legislators are elected to do. “A legislator who intends to steal must be punished,” Drilon said, “but I will defend the right of every senator and congressman to amend through what is now called insertions.” For Drilon, the real issue is not the amendment itself but how it is carried out and monitored. “It is in the execution of these amendments, and the failure of those who are supposed to exact accountability, that has caused all this mess,” he warned. Having chaired the Senate finance committee for years, Drilon knows where the system falters — and it is almost always in the lack of transparency and oversight once the budget is approved. To restore discipline and clarity in public spending, former Finance Secretary and now Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) Monetary Board member Benjamin Diokno has proposed a framework for fiscal responsibility and accountability. His plan redefines the rules of the game — focusing on transparency, consistency, and shared responsibility among all branches of government. Diokno’s approach emphasizes several key principles. First, he urges both chambers of Congress to respect the spending ceilings and priorities set by the Development Budget Coordinating Committee and to rally behind the President’s National Expenditure Program as the main policy blueprint for national development. Second, lawmakers must safeguard long-term foreign-assisted projects that often suffer from funding interruptions due to political bargaining. Third, he calls for full public disclosure of the House and Senate versions of the General Appropriations Bill so that citizens can see every proposed change. Fourth, Diokno suggests that bicameral conference meetings, where controversial insertions are introduced, should be opened to the public. And lastly, he urges the President to exercise the line-item veto against questionable appropriations, while Congress should be ready to assert its constitutional power to override such vetoes when justified. This system of open and equal accountability, Diokno said, is how true checks and balances should work — “not through whispers in the dark, but through openness.” If these rules are followed, he believes, the country can rebuild fiscal discipline, and restore public trust in the budget process. Both Drilon and Diokno agree on one fundamental point: the national budget is not just a spending document; it is a moral statement about what the government values most and it sets its priorities. “Protecting it from abuse,” Diokno said, “is protecting the people’s trust.” And that trust, once broken, cannot be easily restored. To protect the budget from misuse, Diokno advocates a reform agenda anchored on three pillars — rigorous monitoring, independent auditing, and digital transformation. Digitalization, in particular, can create transparent audit trails that track every peso from allocation to disbursement, making it far more difficult for funds to vanish into political or bureaucratic black holes. But even the best-designed systems will fail without citizen vigilance. “Oversight works best when the public remains vigilant,” Diokno said, calling on civil society, watchdog groups, and the media to play a more active role in tracking government spending. Transparency, after all, is not just a government obligation — it is a civic responsibility. The term “budget insertion” only becomes dirty when it is done in secrecy. When legislators quietly insert projects for personal or political gain, they betray the trust placed in them. But when they propose amendments openly, justified by data and community needs, they fulfill their duty to ensure that national resources serve the people. The real enemy is not the insertion itself — it is the abuse of it. Instead of condemning the process outright, the public should demand that it be reformed and conducted in full daylight. Lawmakers, for their part, should wear transparency as a badge of honor. Every amendment, every peso redirected, should be traceable and defensible before Filipino taxpayers. Ultimately, budget insertions are neither inherently good nor evil. They are tools — and like any tool, they can build or destroy, depending on who wields them and how they are used. Reforming the budget process, therefore, is not just about fixing paperwork or accounting systems. It is about restoring moral integrity in how public funds are planned, spent, and justified. Email: [email protected]