Yesterday, during a Senate hearing, Sen. Imee Marcos took aim at the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), accusing it of being “misleading” over the P238 billion identified for the government’s response to the Middle East-driven oil crisis.
The irony? Even as she acknowledged that the funds were not “extra,” she still pushed a narrative that suggested otherwise—raising doubts, casting suspicion, and implying wrongdoing.
All this, despite arriving late to the very hearing where the full explanation was laid out.
Let’s set the record straight.
There is no such thing as “P238 billion in extra funds.”
That claim is not just misleading—it is factually wrong.
What DBM identified is a pool of available appropriations—funds that already exist within the system, identified as possible sources to help address the impact of the Middle East Crisis. These come from the 2026 General Appropriations Act (GAA), continuing appropriations, and automatic appropriations.
In plain terms, this is neither new money nor hidden money. And this is certainly not money taken from other programs.
It is existing, lawful, and properly authorized funding—now being strategically aligned to respond to a global oil crisis, to mitigate its effects on vulnerable sectors.
That is called sound public financial management.
What is deeply concerning is the attempt to reframe these funds as something “extra” or worse, “ghost” funding. That narrative collapses under even the most basic scrutiny.
DBM never claimed these were additional funds. DBM never said these were idle funds waiting to be spent. DBM clearly stated—on record—that these are available appropriations already embedded in the national budget framework.
So where is this “ghost” coming from?
Certainly not from the data. Certainly not from official briefing and press releases, but from a DELIBERATE DISTORTION OF FACTS.
Let’s address another critical point conveniently ignored.
Even the beneficiaries and program targets of agencies are not static. As clearly presented in multiple hearings and inter-agency discussions on UPLIFT, including yesterday’s briefing, agencies themselves continuously refine and update their beneficiary lists and coverage based on evolving conditions on the ground.
That is precisely why, under Executive Order No. 110, DBM was tasked to identify possible funding sources from existing programs under the 2025 and 2026 GAAs.
And in every single presentation, the point was consistent and unambiguous: These are not new funds. These are existing agency resources that may be refocused—subject to existing laws, rules, and regulations, without unduly compromising the quality of mandated deliverables of various agencies.
Part of that framework includes unobligated allotments already released to agencies, which may be offered as savings to support crisis interventions. This is fully consistent with established policy, including mechanisms covered under budget issuance guidelines.
This is not circumvention. This is exactly how the system is designed to respond in times of crisis.
Let’s also be unequivocal about the more serious accusations.
The claim that DBM is “overturning the GAA,” bypassing Congress, or worse, committing acts akin to malversation, is not just inaccurate—It is false, reckless, and deeply irresponsible rhetoric.
The procedures being followed—modification, use of savings, and augmentation—are explicitly provided for under the General Provisions of the GAA itself.
These are far from being invented shortcuts. These are legal mechanisms enacted by Congress.
So the question naturally arises: If these provisions were crafted by legislators themselves, why is there a failure to understand how they are operationalized?
And then there is the context that cannot be ignored. The senator raising these accusations was not even present for the full discussion.
According to those in the room, what followed was not a calibrated line of inquiry, but clear grandstanding—an attempt to project command of the issue, despite missing key technical explanations.
Agencies themselves pushed back, noting that the criticisms did not align with how the General Provisions actually function in practice.
In simple terms: the assertions were not just aggressive—they were misinformed.
Public finance is not a guessing game. It is not built on soundbites, partial attendance, or selective interpretation. It requires technical understanding, institutional memory, and respect for the rules that govern how public funds are managed.
The DBM acted within its mandate. It identified legitimate funding sources. It imposed fiscal discipline through a 20% reduction in non-essential spending. It protected critical sectors like health, education, and social protection. And it ensured that assistance is targeted to those most affected—transport workers, farmers, fisherfolk, and vulnerable households.
So let’s call this what it is. This is neither a scandal nor a cover-up, but a misrepresentation of a standard, rules-based fiscal response.
And in times like this, misinformation is not harmless—it erodes trust, distorts public understanding, and distracts from real solutions.
If we are serious about accountability, then we must also be serious about accuracy. Before accusing institutions of wrongdoing, the bare minimum is to understand the numbers and system, read the documents and provisions, and show up for the discussion, NOT for grandstanding.