The national budget follows a process that, at least on paper, is straightforward.
The executive branch prepares the budget through the National Expenditure Program (NEP) and submits it to Congress.
The House of Representatives and the Senate then deliberate on the proposed budget, make changes, and approve the General Appropriations Bill.
The President may then sign the budget into law and also veto specific items.
But the flood control corruption investigation revealed that lawmakers would have a hand in the NEP even before it is formally submitted to Congress.
This practice, referred to as allocating “leadership funds” or having “allocables,” adds another layer to the budget process. It gives lawmakers an opportunity to insert projects during the preparation phase, behind closed doors, before the NEP is transmitted to Congress for deliberation.
Rappler’s series of investigations has revealed that several lawmakers and other public officials are linked to companies that secured multibillion-peso infrastructure projects, some of them owned by the lawmakers themselves or by their relatives, raising conflict of interest questions.
The leadership funds, as coined by former Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) secretary Manuel Bonoan, came under scrutiny anew after he testified before the anti-graft court Sandiganbayan on Wednesday, August 12, that senators received these funds.
Bonoan claimed that P24 billion had been allocated for senators since 2024, but the amount each senator received was allegedly subject to the discretion of then-Senate president Migz Zubiri.
Zubiri, in response, said, “For the record, as Senate President, I never requested, held or handled any list of project requests from senators.” He noted that senators’ requests are coursed through the Senate committee on finance, which oversees budget deliberations at the upper chamber.
“With that said, I see nothing wrong with making institutional amendments to support roads, bridges, airports, seaports and other critical infrastructure for far-flung communities, as long as these are requested and approved by the implementing agency, properly carried out and free from any interference driven by personal interests or corruption,” he said.
“Almost all legislators, from senators to members of the House of Representatives, introduce amendments to the budget,” he added.
The brains behind this scheme are Bonoan and the late DPWH undersecretary Cathy Cabral, Senator Panfilo “Ping” Lacson said.
In Malacañang, Palace press officer Claire Castro said that the President has “no personal knowledge” of any alleged arrangement between Bonoan and Zubiri in relation to the leadership fund. She also shared the statement of DPWH chief Vince Dizon that his agency’s proposed 2027 budget does not provide for any leadership fund or allocables.
The Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism earlier reported that the President’s son, Ilocos Norte 1st District Representative Sandro Marcos, and then-speaker Martin Romualdez got the biggest shares of “allocable” funds from 2023 to 2025.
So, what’s wrong with leadership funds?
Lacson said the leadership funds or allocables is the “worst version” of the pork barrel as it circumvents the regular budget process. He renewed his call to abolish them.
Budget preparation is “within the domain of the executive down to the local levels, the local government units,” Lacson said in a statement earlier in the week.
Lacson said allowing insertions at the NEP stage may be intended to avoid complications during the bicameral conference committee, where the House and Senate reconcile differences in their respective versions of the budget.
“Leadership fund is not only a descendant of the outlawed ‘pork barrel’ but also its worst version. Why would members of Congress dip their hands in the budget preparation phase outside of the local development councils preparation of their local development plans where they are allowed to represent their districts?” Lacson asked.
If legislators are able to identify, negotiate, or insert projects while the executive branch is still preparing the NEP, they are effectively participating in a stage of the budget process that is primarily the executive’s responsibility.
“While insertions per se do not automatically translate to misuse of public funds, it could open the floodgates of abuse and misuse of public funds for some corrupt politicians,” Lacson said.
There are several reforms to ensure transparency. The bicam was seen by the public for the first time in 2025. DPWH launched a transparency website.
The media and civil society are closely tuning in to the budget deliberations.
But with the leadership funds and allocables and connivance between the members of the executive and legislative, the budget deliberations seem to be a staged act.
For 2027, Senator JV Ejercito, the new Senate finance committee chairperson, assured the public he will not allow leadership funds.
“So it will not happen again. Nothing like that will happen,” he promised, as quoted in an Inquirer report on Friday, August 14. – Rappler.com
How does this make you feel?
Facts Only
* The executive branch prepares the National Expenditure Program (NEP).
* The House of Representatives and Senate deliberate on and approve the General Appropriations Bill.
* The President signs the budget into law or vetoes specific items.
* Former DPWH Secretary Manuel Bonoan testified on August 12 at the Sandiganbayan.
* Bonoan stated P24 billion was allocated for senators since 2024.
* Former Senate President Migz Zubiri denied requesting or handling project lists from senators.
* Senator Panfilo Lacson identified Bonoan and the late Cathy Cabral as the architects of the "leadership funds" scheme.
* Representative Sandro Marcos and former Speaker Martin Romualdez received the largest shares of allocable funds from 2023 to 2025.
* Palace press officer Claire Castro stated the President has no personal knowledge of arrangements between Bonoan and Zubiri.
* DPWH chief Vince Dizon stated the proposed 2027 budget contains no leadership funds.
* Senator JV Ejercito pledged to disallow leadership funds for 2027.
Executive Summary
The standard national budget process involves the executive branch drafting the National Expenditure Program (NEP), followed by legislative deliberation and presidential approval. However, investigations into flood control projects have revealed the existence of "leadership funds" or "allocables," which allow lawmakers to insert projects into the NEP before it is formally submitted to Congress. This practice is criticized as a version of the outlawed pork barrel system because it bypasses the formal budget process and occurs behind closed doors.
Perspectives on this practice vary. Critics, such as Senator Panfilo Lacson, argue that these insertions invite corruption and conflict of interest, particularly when projects are awarded to companies linked to the lawmakers themselves. Conversely, former Senate President Migz Zubiri contends that institutional amendments for critical infrastructure in remote areas are acceptable provided they are approved by implementing agencies and free from personal interest. While current leadership promises that these funds will be eliminated for the 2027 budget, the controversy highlights a systemic tension between executive preparation and legislative influence.
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative is that the "leadership fund" represents a systemic failure of the separation of powers, where the legislative branch infiltrates the executive’s preparatory phase to secure funding for projects that may benefit personal interests rather than public needs. This suggests that the formal budget hearings are merely a performance, with the actual distribution of wealth decided in private.
The narrative relies on a pattern of contrasting the "on paper" process with a "behind closed doors" reality. By framing the formal process as a "staged act," the argument moves from a critique of policy to a critique of the entire institutional integrity of the budget process.
Patterns detected: none
The root cause is a persistent paradigm of patronage politics, where infrastructure projects serve as currency for political loyalty. This echoes a historical pattern in many developing democracies where "pork barrel" spending evolves into more sophisticated, less visible forms to evade legal prohibitions.
The implication is a degradation of human agency; when public funds are allocated via private negotiation, the actual needs of "far-flung communities" are subordinated to the strategic interests of political elites. The second-order consequence is the erosion of public trust in transparency measures, such as websites or open bicameral meetings, which are perceived as cosmetic rather than substantive.
Bridge Questions:
1. If these funds were replaced by a purely data-driven, needs-based allocation system, who would lose the most power?
2. What specific mechanisms would be required to prove that an "institutional amendment" is free from "personal interests"?
3. Does the elimination of "leadership funds" solve the core issue, or does it simply push the insertions to a different stage of the process?
Counterstrike Scan: A coordinated campaign would likely use these revelations to delegitimize the entire current administration by linking the President's family directly to the funds. This content, however, presents the claims as part of a broader systemic investigation involving multiple administrations and officials.
The content is clean.