₱63.9 Billion for “Assistance,” or ₱63.9 Billion for Control? (Editorial)

There is something deeply rotten when a government quietly inflates a single assistance fund by ₱37 billion—with no national debate, no compelling justification, and no real safeguards—while demanding that the public simply trust its intentions⁉️

The bicameral conference committee’s approval of “₱63.9 BILLION” for the Assistance to Individuals in Crisis Situations (AICS) under the 2026 national budget is “not an act of compassion”. It is an act of raw political engineering❗️

What was originally ₱26.9 billion in the National Expenditure Program has been grotesquely bloated into a financial monster that now rivals core social services—without the transparency those services are required to uphold.

“This is not generosity.

This is power consolidation disguised as welfare.

A Fund Too Big to Be Innocent

AICS is, by design, discretionary. That alone should have raised alarms. Instead, Congress poured tens of billions more into it—knowing full well that discretionary funds are the most vulnerable to abuse, patronage, and political manipulation.”

No rigorous explanation was offered.

No public accounting was demanded.

No meaningful oversight mechanism was strengthened.

At a time when billions have vanished through anomalous infrastructure projects, questionable flood control programs, and ballooning confidential and intelligence funds—with no one jailed, no one convicted, no one held accountable—lawmakers expect the public to believe that this sudden explosion of AICS funding is purely benevolent.

That belief is not just naïve. It is insulting.

The New Pork, Rebranded

Let us call this what it is. “AICS and MAIFIP” have become the new pork barrel, cleverly rebranded to evade the stigma of the past. These funds are not meant to lift people out of poverty; they are meant to keep people dependent—grateful, silent, and politically loyal❗️

⚠️Cash assistance handed out with cameras rolling.

Medical “AID” released with names attached.

Relief funds distributed just in time for elections.

This is not social protection. This is transactional governance.‼️

The poor are reduced to footnotes in press releases. Their suffering is converted into leverage. Their desperation becomes a tool—used not to dismantle inequality, but to sustain “political dynasties and prolong corrupt careers.”

While the Nation Bleeds, Politicians Feast‼️

While classrooms lack chairs, hospitals lack equipment, farmers lack support, and workers drown in inflation, Congress has found the political will to massively expand a fund that offers maximum control with minimum accountability.‼️

This tells us everything.

The priority is not reform.

The priority is not institution-building.

The priority is survival—political survival at any cost.

Every peso added to a fund that can be manipulated is a peso taken away from structural solutions. Every unchecked increase is a declaration that the system prefers short-term loyalty over long-term justice.❗️

A Dangerous Normalization

What makes this moment truly alarming is not just the amount—but the ease with which it was done. No outrage from leadership. No national reckoning. Just another line item quietly approved, as if ₱63.9 billion were pocket change.⁉️

This normalization of excess, discretion, and opacity is how democracies rot—not with a bang, but with paperwork.

If this passes without resistance, then the message is clear:

“CORRUPTION no longer needs to hide.

PATRONAGE no longer needs excuses.

POWER no longer fears exposure.”

History Is Watching

Budgets are moral documents. They reveal who matters—and who does not. This budget tells us that what matters most is control: control over aid, over loyalty, over silence.

But history does not remember budgets kindly. It remembers consequences.

It remembers who enabled the abuse.

It remembers who benefited from silence.

And it remembers who stood up when public money was turned into a weapon against the people.

₱63.9 billion for AICS is not a policy choice.

It is a warning.

And the question now is simple:

Will the public accept this as “help”—or finally see it for what it is?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back To Top