The Department of Budget and Management’s endorsement of public scrutiny for congressional bicameral deliberations marks a welcome, if overdue, step toward genuine fiscal transparency. Budget Secretary Kim Robert C. De Leon’s statement that ‘greater transparency strengthens, not complicates, the budget process’ acknowledges what civil society groups have long demanded: the people’s business should be conducted in full view of the people Last year’s historic live-streaming of bicameral sessions on the P6.793-trillion 2026 budget proved that openness is not only possible but productive. Yet transparency cannot be selective. The DBM’s support for open bicam proceedings must be matched by Congress’s willingness to dismantle the institutional shadows where questionable budget practices have long thrived.
Chief among these is the persistent scourge of unprogrammed appropriations-the so-called ‘shadow budget’ that operates outside legitimate oversight. At P111.984 billion in the proposed 2027 budget, these standby funds represent executive discretion run amok. They function as a slush fund, activated not by legislative appropriation but by vague triggers like ‘excess tax collections’ or foreign loans that may never materialize. This is not budgeting; it is budgeting by loophole.
The constitutional question raised by Supreme Court Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando-that unprogrammed appropriations in any form are unconstitutional-should have settled this debate. Yet year after year, billions continue to be set aside for projects that lack dedicated revenue sources and escape the scrutiny that regular appropriations must endure. The DBM’s openness to ‘further reducing’ these funds is tepid at best. De Leon’s ‘the lower, the better’ formulation suggests a negotiation rather than an acknowledgment that these appropriations may be legally indefensible.
The bicameral conference committee has earned its reputation as a ‘third chamber’ where transparency goes to die. It is here, behind closed doors, that last-minute insertions like the Ayuda sa Kapos ang Kita Program (Akap) allocations materialize without committee deliberation or public input. The bicam has become the preferred venue for pork barrel by another name-where political horse-trading replaces policy analysis and patronage masquerades as public service.
Opening these proceedings is not merely symbolic. When taxpayers can witness how their money is allocated, the calculus of accountability shifts. Lawmakers know they are being watched. The insertion of pet projects becomes politically costly. The quality of deliberation improves when participants know the public is listening.
But transparency at the bicam level, while necessary, is insufficient. True budget reform requires eliminating-not merely reducing-the unconstitutional practice of unprogrammed appropriations. It demands that every peso of the P7.2-trillion proposed budget for 2027 be tied to a specific, existing revenue source and subject to the same legislative scrutiny.
The DBM’s support for open bicams is a step in the right direction, but the agency must go further. If the department truly has ‘nothing to gain from making the budget difficult to understand,’ it should lead the charge to abolish the shadow budget entirely. The constitutional imperative is clear: there should be no appropriation without authorization, and no authorization without accountability.
Congress should seize this moment to institutionalize transparency, not treat it as a discretionary favor. Live-streaming should be mandatory, not optional. Unprogrammed appropriations should be zeroed out, not merely reduced. And the bicameral conference committee should be transformed from a backroom dealing chamber into a public forum where the people’s money is allocated in service of the people’s interests.
The budget is the most concrete expression of national priorities. It is time we stopped funding them in the shadows.