Not all lump sums are inherently corrupt; opacity is the enemy

As deliberations for the 2027 national budget commence, we are once again confronted with the perennial debate: “Are lump sum appropriations in the General Appropriations Act (GAA) illegal?” Some label all lump sums as “pork,” while others argue they grant the executive unlimited spending authority. Both perspectives are flawed. The reality is that while lump sum appropriations are legal, they are—and must remain—strictly governed by the 1987 Philippine Constitution and existing laws.

The Constitution, specifically Article VI, Section 25, authorizes lump sum appropriations. Items such as the Contingency Fund, the Miscellaneous Personnel Benefits Fund, and the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Fund are standard features of the GAA. These exist because the government cannot anticipate every contingency 12 months in advance. Flexibility is a necessity, not a luxury; a pandemic, a typhoon, or a sudden security crisis requires immediate fiscal response. If the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) were forced to seek congressional approval for every peso, essential public services would grind to a halt.

However, flexibility is not a license for abuse. In Belgica v. Ochoa (2013), the Supreme Court did not strike down the Priority Development Assistance Fund because it was a lump sum, but because it lacked defined standards and violated the separation of powers. The Court firmly established that lump sums are constitutional only when they serve a specific purpose and when post-enactment discretion is strictly curtailed.

Article continues after this advertisement

Under Article VI, Section 25 (5), transfers and augmentations are permissible only from “savings” and are restricted to specific high-ranking officials to prevent the issuance of a “blank check.” Furthermore, Commission on Audit (COA) Circular 2012-003 and DBM regulations dictate that every peso must be liquidated. “Unprogrammed appropriations,” for instance, can only be triggered by certified excess revenues. Without evidence of procurement and proper liquidation, these funds are subject to outright disallowance.

The danger lies not in the existence of lump sums, but in the lack of transparency. When agencies treat these funds as discretionary budgets devoid of clear guidelines, they invite corruption. This erodes public trust and results in disallowances that taxpayers ultimately shoulder.

Congress has a duty during these budget hearings to demand accountability. Each lump sum must be defined by: 1) a clear purpose within the GAA, 2) objective criteria for release, 3) defined spending caps, and 4) mandatory quarterly reporting to Congress and the public. Simultaneously, the DBM should publish a “Lump Sum Utilization Report” every quarter. In the digital age, there is no excuse for failing to disclose which agency received what amount, for which project, and in which locality.

We must remain vigilant. Let us exercise our constitutional right to information under Article II, Section 28. Let us attend to budget hearings, file Freedom of Information requests, and scrutinize COA reports.

Article continues after this advertisement

Lump sums are not the enemy of good governance; opacity is. We must move past the myth that all lump sums are inherently corrupt, while simultaneously rejecting the practice of treating them as presidential or departmental “pork.” With robust oversight and radical transparency, lump sums can function as intended: as vital instruments for emergency response and public service, rather than sources of scandal.

REGINALD B. TAMAYO,

Marikina City