“To market, to market, to buy a fat pig. Home again, home again, jiggety-jig.”
That is a nursery rhyme from the Mother Goose collection of playful jingles chanted by little children in England and America since the 1600s. “To Market, To Market” or “To Market, To Market, to Buy a Fat Pig” is based upon the traditional rural activity of going to a market or fair where agricultural produce would be bought and sold. It showed a slice of life to the young.
It was about this time in history that the “marketplace” came of age. As populations grew and communities formed, market traders rose to meet the needs and services of the towns. The economic forces of demand and supply played on the limitations or surpluses of buyers as well as sellers. Money, of course, was the medium of exchange. One could only buy what one had money to buy with.
And so, for the individual buyer or seller, budgeting had become a necessary, and instinctive part of living. The development of the modern meaning of “budgeting” goes back to early medieval France in the days of the troubadours. These strolling players assigned to one of their members the task of handling funds of the company, which were kept in a leather bag (“bougette” — sounds like “budget”). This custodian became known as the budgeter. This simply meant that he kept and disbursed the funds as needed, for the group. Thus, the early definition of budget was that of a supply of something contained in a bag, or a limited supply of funds (Flesher, Dave, and Tonya K. Flesher, “A history of budgeting,” egrove.olemiss.edu).
The Fleshers, both CPAs, credit the English for the first real budgets as they are known today. King Henry I, who reigned from 1100 to 1135 first used what is now known as the modern budget. His budget differed from the earlier control systems in that the common man had a voice in financial matters. He wanted the people to know that their tributes and taxes were spent (maybe at least partially) for the improvement of common lives. He enforced budgeting in the fiefdoms (the smaller landlords), who reported to him the tithes collected from the people and estimates of future collections. Thus, King Henry advanced the ideas of budgeting and democracy.
“Budgeting is virtually synonymous with democracy in that the early connotation of budget related to the manner in which funds were supplied and democracy is concerned with ‘taxation with representation’.” (Ibid.).
As early as 1760, the custom was for the English Chancellor of the Exchequer to present the budget in his report to Parliament on national finances at the beginning of each fiscal year. It included an accounting for the past expenditures and an estimate of future expenditures with a proposal for a tax levy. The budget was then an outline of the ways and means of providing the supply of funds needed to meet expenditures while mindful of the people’s tolerance limits on taxation.
“Today, every leading country in the world utilizes the science of governmental budgeting. History reveals that any time this right to participate in the financial affairs of a government is denied, serious trouble results. The English revolution of 1688 was an example of this as were the American Revolution and the French Revolution,” the Fleshers warn.
So, it is with grave foreboding that in the representative democracy of our still-developing country, Filipinos are confronted, confounded and threatened with the approved 2025 national budget. “Much has been said already about the 2025 budget, touted as the crookedest of all, but one glaring implication I’d like to stress is that it would set our country back, by at least a decade and possibly generations. And we should brace for impact, not the sudden, forceful, instant-death kind of crash but an ugly, slow burn of sorts — a death by a thousand cuts,” columnist Iris Gonzales said in The Philippine Star on Jan. 7.
“Lord, don’t allow darkness and evil to reign,” Bishop Roberto Gaa of the Catholic Diocese of Novaliches prayed in an ecumenical service at the EDSA Shrine on Dec. 23, 2024, of the Clergy for Good Governance, a newly formed movement of at least 13 Catholic bishops and 209 priests, and their partner Christian organizations.
“On this day, in our prayer, may we see, Oh God, the punishment you will impose on selfish and greedy people,” Reverend Dionito Cabillas of the Aglipayan Iglesia Filipina Independiente supplicated.
Note: The Clergy for Good Governance is an offshoot of the 1,200-strong Clergy for the Moral Choice that endorsed Leni Robredo, Marcos’ closest rival, in the 2022 presidential election. Key members of the group had joined the filing of impeachment complaints against Vice-President Sara Duterte over the past three weeks, but the recent prayer service at the EDSA Shrine targeted the budget controversy involving Marcos and his cousin, Speaker Martin Romualdez (Rappler, Dec. 23, 2024).
On Dec. 30, 2024, President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos, Jr. signed the P6.326-trillion budget for 2025, making an eleventh-hour decision to veto P194 billion worth of items in the submission of Congress on Dec. 11 which he deemed “not consistent with our programmed priorities.”
The biggest slash came from unprogrammed appropriations (UA) at P168.24 billion, while P26.065 billion was cut from Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) projects (Philstar.com, Dec. 30, 2024). Budget advocates have complained about reductions in the education budget and the removal of a subsidy for the government health insurance program, among other cuts (Reuters, Dec. 30, 2024).
Budget Secretary Amenah Pangandaman explained that unprogrammed appropriations — items in the budget without specific allocated funds — had ballooned during congressional deliberations, from P178 billion to almost 10% of the total budget, after the bicameral conference committee’s approval. The vetoes brought these down to 4.7%, closer to the 5% standard recommended by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, Ms. Pangandaman said in a press conference following the signing ceremony (Ibid.).
But “the president’s move to slash unprogrammed appropriations in next year’s budget follows scrutiny of his administration’s own expansion of these standby funds. From a typical ceiling of P260 billion before his term, these funds swelled to P807 billion in 2023 — the first budget fully prepared under Marcos — and P731 billion in 2024,” the Philstar article pointed out.
Note that for the 2025 budget, Congress once again approved a higher UA allocation for the executive branch than originally requested. The executive branch initially asked for P158.67 billion (the lowest proposed UA since 2018) but was granted P531.67 billion by the bicameral body (Philstar.com, Jan. 6, 2025).
Intact, not vetoed, was the last-minute addition of P17.37 billion to the House-approved P16.3 billion for its own budget, more than doubling the House budget to P33.67 billion. The Senate’s addition of P1.1 billion to its original P12.8 billion was also allowed (Ibid.).
After the daze from the Happy New Year fireworks and revelry, attention reverted to the distressing 2025 budget which was going to determine “Manigong Bagong Taon” (a prosperous and contented New Year) for Filipinos. “Marcos vetoed a whopping P194 billion from the 2025 budget — the largest cut he had made during his presidency. (But) from P6.352 trillion initially proposed by the executive branch, the 2025 budget is now (still) P6.326 trillion” (Philstar.com, Jan. 6, 2025).
“We have been shamelessly betrayed by our officials, from BBM to our elected leaders in Congress in the enactment of the 2025 national budget. BBM (Bongbong Marcos) could have saved the day but he connived with Congress in his token veto of P26.065 billion worth of projects under the DPWH and P168.240 billion allocated under Unprogrammed Appropriations.’ Not surprisingly, BBM kept intact the pork funds inserted in the DPWH budget,” columnist Boo Chanco pointed out (The Philippine Star, Jan. 6).
So also were the pork barrel funds in AKAP (Ayuda sa Kapos ang Kita Program) kept, Chanco said. “AKAP is purely dole-out to fund vote-buying in the May election. AKAP perpetuates the dependence of our poor citizens on politicians. Even if DSWD (Department of Social Welfare and Development) implements it, a letter from a politician facilitates the grant. In a sense, AKAP perpetuates a beggar mentality among our people,” he explained (Ibid.).
Critics of the P26-billion AKAP, including retired Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, likened the AKAP to pork barrel (Philstar.com, Dec. 30, 2024).
Ay, the pork barrel! Citizens Against Government Waste, a US “political watchdog” NGO, outlines seven criteria by which political spending in the United States can be classified as “pork”: if requested by only one chamber of Congress; not specifically authorized; not competitively awarded; not requested by the President; greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding; not the subject of Congressional hearings; and serves only a local or special interest.
“To budget, to budget, to buy a fat pig!”
Amelia H. C. Ylagan is a doctor of Business Administration from the University of the Philippines.
