‘Allocable’ funds: Resurrected pork barrel

“Allocable” began to emerge in the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) budget after the original pork barrel—Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF)—that explicitly allocated millions of pesos in the General Appropriations Act (GAA) to elected officials of Congress was declared unconstitutional in 2013. The jurisprudence noted that the PDAF system actively engaged elective officials of Congress in budget execution, involving implementation of programs, projects, and activities identified in the GAA. As mandated by the Constitution, it is an exclusive function of the executive branch. Participation of the legislature is prohibited.

Allocable budget refers to funds in the GAA specifically apportioned to legislative districts. Legislators would then become “proponents” of projects in their respective districts, suggesting their involvement in budget execution, i.e., project identification, preparation, and implementation after GAA enactment, an arrangement exactly the same as in the original PDAF pork barrel.

That it is the latest version of pork barrel is a matter of fact, allowing politicians to continue to get involved in budget execution. While both are consecutive versions of pork barrel, there is a big difference between them: budget allocation for PDAF to each member of Congress was collectively determined in equal absolute amount by the legislators themselves; for the so-called “allocable,” it was determined by DPWH based on a “parametric formula” reportedly developed by the late former DPWH undersecretary. The allocation that comes out varies among legislative districts.

The Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism reported that the term “allocable” began to appear in budget documents and became prominent since early 2020s but total amounts were not disclosed. The allocable portion in the 2025 DPWH budget was reportedly P401 billion based on “Cabral files.” In 2026, the amount increased to P529 billion based on the budget reportedly approved at the bicameral conference level.

Allocable funds have become another source of patronage that has increasingly characterized our politics. But unconditional cash transfer programs, otherwise known as “ayuda” remain as the main instrument for political patronage. Its origin was inspired by the Conditional Cash Transfer Program initially funded by the World Bank and later funded by internal budgetary resources as 4Ps (Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program) to alleviate the poverty situation in the country.

Intervention of politicians was preempted through a predetermined and scientifically based targeting of beneficiaries at the community level by the Department of Social Welfare and Development. It was hailed as a successful program mainly because cash transfer was conditional on specific actions of beneficiaries relating to health and education and the scientific way they were targeted.

Unlike the 4Ps, the ayuda programs that followed are unconditional and without predetermined and specific targeting of beneficiaries. Their selection is usually influenced if not controlled by politicians although the programs are implemented by line departments. Currently ongoing,

among others, are AICS, Tupad, Maifip, Akap. With regard to Maifip, participation of politicians was even required as prospective beneficiaries must secure guarantee letters from them for presentation to implementing authorities. In response to public sentiments against participation of politicians in ayuda program implementation, the 2026 GAA reportedly includes an explicit provision prohibiting it.

As an alternative to a pork barrel approach in project identification, preparation, and implementation in which legislators act as “proponent,” they would be well advised to advocate and propose projects for their constituency through the Regional Development Council. Its membership includes local government officials, regional officials of line departments, and representatives of the private sector. Under this alternative, projects proposed by legislators, if positively reviewed, would be included in the National Expenditure Program. More importantly, project development would depend more on assessment of real needs of intended beneficiaries rather than on allocable funds made available by a “proponent” from Congress.

In the midst of scandalous anomalies and the public’s loss of trust and confidence in the budget system, it is unfortunate that allocable funds continue to be included in the 2026 GAA. As “allocable” is in fact the latest resurrection of pork barrel, its abolition by contesting its constitutionality before the Supreme Court even more than unprogrammed appropriation would seem in order.

—————-

Romeo A. Reyes was a former senior economist for the United Nations Development Programme and assistant secretary of the National Economic and Development Authority, now DepDev.