CALOOCAN City 2nd District Rep. Edgar ‘Super Congressman Egay’ Erice had all the reasons to vote against the proposed 2027 national budget.
To him, political considerations have obviously influenced the allocation of public funds as he questioned whether lawmakers who opposed the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte were disadvantaged in district allocations.
Erice cited five reasons for his negative vote, including alleged disparities in district funding, the rejection of a proposal to improve transparency in the House budget, the discretionary nature of the proposed P62-billion Local Government Support Fund, reductions in social services and infrastructure projects, and questionable revenue projections.
The budget appeared to prioritize political influence over public need, pointing to what he described as larger allocations for some districts represented by House leaders, administration allies and lawmakers who supported Duterte’s impeachment.
He contrasted these with allegedly smaller allocations for districts represented by lawmakers who voted against impeachment, questioning whether the differences reflected a system of political rewards and punishment.
Erice also questioned the reduction or removal of projects included in the National Expenditure Program and their replacement with projects whose proponents and selection processes were unclear.
He likewise questioned the rejection of an amendment proposed by Navotas City Rep. Toby Tiangco seeking greater transparency in the House budget.
Erice cited reports alleging that some lawmakers who voted in favor of Duterte’s impeachment received an additional P20 million in maintenance and other operating expenses from House savings, apart from their regular allocations.
The reported amount was allegedly released in five tranches of P4million each while lawmakers who voted against impeachment or abstained supposedly received nothing.
The allegations hadn’t been established as fact, he said, but challenged House leaders to release documents and explain any differences in allocations.
“If it’s not true, release the documents. If it’s true, explain why there’s a difference,” he pointed out.
The veteran legislator also opposed the nearly P62-billion LGSF, arguing that the broad discretion involved in distributing the money lacked clear standards to ensure that the poorest municipalities would receive priority.
The national budget should serve as an instrument for alleviating poverty rather than rewarding political allies or penalizing the opposition.
Goodness gracious!
