MANILA – Scrutiny intensified over additional provisions in the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and Department of Agriculture (DA) budgets during the ongoing bicameral conference committee deliberations on the 2026 General Appropriations Bill, with senators raising concerns about potential insertions, overpricing, and patronage risks. The questions emerged as the bicam hit repeated delays over DPWH allocations, amid the P20-billion flood control scandal’s fallout and debates on farm-to-market roads (FMRs) under DA.
Senators, including Sherwin Gatchalian and Imee Marcos, flagged “disagreeing provisions” in DPWH’s P570-624 billion range (Senate vs. House versions), questioning restorations requested by Secretary Vince Dizon for items slashed via revised Construction Materials Price Data (CMPD). Critics fear hidden pork in unprogrammed funds or realignments, echoing ghost project probes.
For DA, the approved P33 billion for FMR rehabilitation drew side-eye for possible abuse, with calls for special safeguards against overpricing or favoritism—especially as FMR oversight shifts to DA in 2026.
Progressive lawmakers and civil society groups like the People’s Budget Coalition decried the provisions as enabling “pork barrel 2.0,” urging geo-tagging, citizen monitoring, and bans on legislator insertions. The bicam’s livestreamed format amplified public watch, but delays risk a reenacted budget or rushed approvals.
As talks resume, these questioned provisions test post-scandal reforms: In a transparency push, scrutiny isn’t obstruction—it’s oversight, ensuring billions build bridges, not backdoors.
Questioned Provisions Snapshot:
| Agency | Provision/Item | Concern Raised | Amount Involved |
|---|---|---|---|
| DPWH | CMPD adjustments/restorations | Overpricing risks; potential insertions | ~P45B (restoration plea) |
| DA | Farm-to-market roads (FMRs) | Abuse/overpricing safeguards needed | P33B |