4Ps, electricity bills, and issues in social program funding

The Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) is undeniably one of the important social services of the government for least advantaged or low-income households, and therefore a moral program.

Extending the program to various ends follows the same logic as extending social justice. However, the extension of 4Ps to electricity bills does not extend social justice because this is not a government-funded program. It is a consumer aid. This is an issue not because there is an inclusion of the electricity bill in 4Ps itself, but the working class shouldered the program, instead of the government. The issue is essentially the funding mechanism of the program.

In “A Theory of Justice,” John Rawls explains that inequalities are allowed if they benefit everyone. This inequality can be a form of taxation that sustains the intention of major social institutions (i.e., government) to achieve an equal starting point for everyone. That is why there is justice in fairness. However, there may be more injustice than justice if the government will no longer function the way it intends to function—that is, for the welfare of everyone. In the case of the inclusion of 4Ps in electricity bills, it is an outright injustice because people were burdened with the social program. It burdens a group of people for the benefit of another group of people—a paradox.

The government devised an inequality by taking more from the people to benefit 4Ps members. This scheme is already an unjustified inequality because the benefit is disproportionate.

The scheme is technically an avoidance by the government of fulfilling its social duties. What is more striking is that the government allows the use of unprogrammed funds and passes the responsibility to the people for other social programs. This was even raised by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen during the oral arguments last April 21. Instead of expanding the government’s priority social development projects, they are constrained by projected revenues. Once projected revenues are reached, excess funds are allocated to unprogrammed funds, which can become a source of corruption. As a result, responsibility was shifted to the people. The worst part is that the people were not informed of the changes. This is a morally troubling scheme.

Questioning the overall scheme is not about the concern that 4Ps beneficiaries will become lazy. 4Ps is always a crucial social program of the government. The concern is simply the unjust scheme that shuns the government from funding the program and passes it to the people.

Christian Hipolao,
christian.hipolao@gmail.com

For letters to the editor and contributed articles, email to opinion@inquirer.net