EDITORIAL — Overseeing themselves

The two chambers of Congress have ethics committees, so it’s reasonable for lawmakers to believe they can police themselves when it comes to the utilization of the ever-growing types of unconditional aid or ayuda incorporated into the 2026 General Appropriations Act.

But lawmakers will also understand why skepticism has greeted suggestions to set up their own oversight committees in the implementation of the aid schemes, which budget watchdogs in civil society have branded as “soft pork barrel” and which President Marcos’ elder sister has dubbed as “pork giniling” or ground pork.

In the first place, if lawmakers are so concerned about the possibility of abuse in the ayuda programs, they would not have doubled the amount proposed by the executive in the National Expenditure Program for the health pork barrel, the Medical Assistance for Indigent and Financially Incapacitated Patients.

MAIFIP still allows politicians to endorse patients through guarantee letters. The GL privilege could have been expressly banned in the GAA, but lawmakers said this would be up to the implementing agency, the Department of Health.

It remains to be seen whether the DOH, whose head Ted Herbosa continues to be hounded by rumors of being replaced, will muster the gumption for this.

Yesterday, the DOH said MAIFIP guidelines would be out within weeks, and that GLs are not needed for public access to the aid program.

Unless there is a specific prohibition, however, nothing stops politicians from endorsing MAIFIP beneficiaries, and nothing stops hospitals from giving such patients priority.

The same goes for the other pork giniling aid programs, such as the Assistance for Individuals in Crisis Situations, which has been institutionalized in this year’s national budget. AICS covers nearly anything, including burial and wedding expenses as well as health services.

Malacañang said the GAA prohibits elective officials from playing any role in the distribution of all state-funded aid programs. But there is no prohibition on elective officials’ endorsement of beneficiaries before the aid is released or service is provided.

That’s billions in taxpayers’ money at the disposal of elective officials for their personal patronage. What makes it so different from the officials standing on stage to personally hand out ayuda or having their posters displayed at the venues for aid distribution, to claim personal credit for tax-funded services?

And now lawmakers want to oversee themselves in the ayuda process. Some lawmakers are well-meaning and have the integrity for this. Still, the common public reaction includes a reminder from the previous year: Mahiya naman kayo.

Even this shame campaign, however, is starting to wear thin.