Make bicam talks transparent

The 2026 budget is in, the 2025 budget is out. Zaldy Co’s post as chairman of the House committee on appropriations has been declared vacant. The lawmaker cited health reasons for his departure. Perhaps the arduous budget deliberations, all the way to the passage of the 2025 funding bill and the controversies surrounding it, have taken a toll on his health.

But after all is said and done, it’s important that we heed the lessons of the 2025 budget mess, including the controversial cuts so that Congress would be able to pass a better appropriations bill for 2026.

One important step is to make the bicameral conference meetings transparent to the media and to the public, as former senator Ping Lacson had already suggested last year.

In the bicam meetings, representatives from both the House and the Senate meet supposedly to resolve their differences in the respective versions of the budget bill.

Journalists are invited to join the meeting for a few minutes of photo-ops.

After that, however, the doors are closed to the press and to everyone else. Only the representatives from the Senate and the House – each with a laundry list or, should I say, a shopping list of what their chambers want – are present and that’s when the real horse-trading happens.

Making the bicameral conference committee meeting transparent would show who really manipulated the budget or, more accurately, who manipulated it more.

For instance, in the 2025 budget, congressional sources said the Senate was actually responsible for the most significant cuts to essential agencies, while the House retained or even increased funding for critical programs.

Here’s what I gathered from sources and data from Congress:

Department of Education (DepEd):

• House-approved budget: P748.65 billion

• Final GAA: P737.08 billion

• Reduction by bicam: P11.57 billion

PhilHealth:

• House-approved budget: P216.97 billion

• Final GAA: P127.42 billion

• Reduction by bicam: P74.43 billion

DSWD:

• House-approved budget: P313.26 billion

• Final GAA: P217.34 billion

• Reduction by bicam: P95.92 billion

Commission on Higher Education:

• House-approved budget: P60.22 billion

• Final GAA: P33.31 billion

• Reduction by bicam: P26.91 billion

These items show that the significant cuts happened at the bicam level, reducing the budgets approved by the House.

Meanwhile, here’s how the budget played out at the House of Representatives.

The chamber implemented reductions in some and an increase in other agencies.

For instance, the House was responsible for the reduction in the Office of the Vice President’s budget, which centered on the controversial allocation of confidential and intelligence funds.

Office of the Vice President (OVP):

• National Expenditure Program (NEP): P2.03 billion

• House-approved budget: P733.19 million

• Reduction by the House: P1.29 billion

DepEd:

• NEP allocation: P748.09 billion

• House-approved budget: P748.65 billion

• Increase by the House: P563.48 million

PhilHealth:

• NEP allocation: P165.90 billion

• House-approved budget: P216.97 billion

• Increase by the House: P51.07 billion

DSWD:

• NEP allocation: P229.79 billion

• House-approved budget: P313.26 billion

• Increase by the House: P83.47 billion

The third chamber

What do these numbers mean?

It means the bicam process is very opaque. It lacks transparency yet it’s a very powerful third chamber. As ex-senator Ping said last year, as quoted by news reports: “It is the most powerful chamber, because there are no transcripts or minutes of the meeting. The problem is after the meeting is opened, a small group is created.”

Imagine that! They are doing last-minute tinkering worth billions and yet there are no minutes of these bicam meetings.

This lack of transparency makes it difficult for the public to identify where and why adjustments were made.

For example, based on the data I gathered, the massive and controversial cuts were made by the Senate at the bicam.

On the other hand, there were several examples where the House supported the NEP and increased funding for critical social programs even as it implemented a justified reduction in the budget of the OVP.

However, due to lack of transparency in the bicam, the blame is solely on the House for all the cuts and adjustments and not necessarily on the Senate. But the Senate should be held to account as well for the 2025 budget mess.

This cannot happen again.

As I said in previous columns, the 2025 budget will set us back for decades, perhaps a generation even.

May we heed the lessons and make the process more transparent as we prepare the 2026 budget.

Moving forward, both the Senate and the House should prioritize funding for programs that directly benefit the Filipino people, instead of allowing political considerations, vested interests or side rackets, to overshadow their decisions.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]. Follow her on Twitter @eyesgonzales. Column archives at EyesWideOpen on FB.