MANILA — Malacañang has defended the proposed P4-billion infrastructure allocation for the congressional district of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s son, House Majority Leader Sandro Marcos, as lawmakers prepare to scrutinize nearly P1 trillion in potentially questionable items in the proposed P6.793-trillion national budget for 2027.
The Palace insisted that congressional budget insertions were not necessarily improper, arguing that infrastructure projects should be judged by their legitimacy, public benefits and proper use of government funds rather than the political connections of the lawmakers representing their districts.
Palace Press Officer Claire Castro made the defense amid mounting criticism of the P4-billion allocation for Ilocos Norte’s second congressional district, with economist Cielo Magno challenging President Marcos to veto the funding.
Castro maintained that the same standards should apply to all congressional districts, regardless of who represents them.
“Lahat po ito, ha, hindi po partikular kay Congressman Sandro Marcos, nilalahat po natin,” Castro said, emphasizing that her explanation applied to lawmakers generally, not just the President’s son.
She argued that legitimate infrastructure projects should not be denied funding simply because they were proposed by members of Congress.
“Kung ang mga proyekto naman ng isang congressman ay maayos at ang pondong ilalaan dito ay magagamit nang tama sino ba naman ang dapat na humadlang kung ang pondong ito ay sasapat naman para mapaganda ang isang distrito,” she said.
Castro also defended the practice of congressional budget insertions, drawing a distinction between legitimate project allocations and the diversion of public funds for personal enrichment.
“Ang insertion hindi po ito generally masama, nagiging masama lang ang insertion kung ang pera ay i-insert sa bulsa ng politiko, iyon ang masama,” she added.
The controversy surrounding the President’s son comes as the proposed 2027 national budget faces intensified scrutiny over billions of pesos in infrastructure allocations whose necessity and supporting documentation have been questioned.
The People’s Budget Coalition has flagged approximately P1 trillion in potentially questionable allocations in the House-approved spending measure, including nearly 7,000 infrastructure projects allegedly lacking adequate documentation or clear justifications.
The findings have raised broader concerns over transparency, accountability and the possible misuse of congressional influence in determining how public funds are distributed.
Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian said the Senate Finance Committee would thoroughly examine the questioned allocations to establish whether the projects were justified and necessary.
“Pag-aaralan namin mabuti kung yun ay valid at may pangangailangan ba. Dahil kasama rin naman sa kanilang responsibilidad ang mag-amyenda, magbago, pero lahat ito dapat may basis,” Gatchalian told reporters.
He said senators would coordinate with the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) to determine whether the proposed infrastructure projects were supported by feasibility studies, work programs and other required documents.
Senate Finance Committee chairperson JV Ejercito likewise called for a careful review of the allocations, stressing that projects should not automatically be considered questionable simply because they were included through congressional amendments.
“[W]e need to verify [because] not all projects are bad, we need also to accelerate public spending to spur economic growth,” Ejercito said.
He disclosed that senators were particularly interested in examining approximately P266 billion in allocations in the House-approved budget that reportedly lacked supporting documents.
The Senate’s scrutiny is expected to determine which projects deserve funding and which allocations should be modified or removed because of insufficient justification.
While Malacañang maintains that the P4-billion allocation for Sandro Marcos’ district should be evaluated on its merits, the controversy has placed renewed attention on the need to ensure that congressional infrastructure funding is based on genuine public needs rather than political influence.
The Senate review will test whether the questioned allocations, including those benefiting politically influential congressional districts, can withstand closer examination and meet the government’s requirements for transparency, documentation and accountability./PN
