Good faith, clear mandate: DBM is not a super department, nor a scapegoat

Every peso in the national budget carries with it the sweat of the Filipino taxpayer. It represents countless hours of labor, remittances from overseas workers, and the daily sacrifices of families who tighten their belts to pay their dues to the state.

- GODDES HOPE 0. LIBIRAN

That peso is meant to return to the people in the form of classrooms, medicines, bridges, and flood protection that should make life safer and better. That is why the unfolding controversy over alleged ghost projects and questionable flood control spending has struck such a nerve. It is not only about infrastructure but trust in government.

Finger-pointing at the wrong place

In the heat of public hearings and political debates, some lawmakers have begun pointing fingers at the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), suggesting that the anomalies in the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) budget indicate a DBM failure. But such claims ignore the fundamentals of how our budget system actually works.

The budget process is not designed for DBM to validate blueprints or check soil quality. It is designed for DBM to ensure alignment, prudence, and accountability in the allocation of limited resources. If DBM were expected to review the specs of every single project—whether the firearms of AFP, the radar of DOST, the airplanes of the Air Force, the weather equipment of PAGASA, or the vaccines of DOH—it would be reduced to an impossible role: a super department run by a super secretary. That is neither realistic nor legal.

Every department has its own planning officers, technical experts, budget and procurement officers, and agency heads who are duty-bound to guarantee the technical integrity of their projects. DBM cannot—and should not—micromanage their work. Its mandate, under the law and budget circulars, is clear: evaluate submissions, check alignment with fiscal policies, and curb duplication and waste.

Understanding the budget process