The halls of the Senate recently became the stage for a dramatic and unsettling confrontation over the proposed P6.79-trillion 2026 National Budget, laying bare a fiscal reality that is both alarming and unsustainable. In a gripping plenary debate that held the nation’s financial future in the balance, Senator Rodante Marcoleta unleashed a barrage of questions against the administration’s economic manager, exposing a government struggling to finance a colossal budget amidst a significant economic slowdown and lingering shadows of corruption.

This was not a mere budgetary inquiry; it was a deeply emotional call for accountability, demanding a transparent, granular, and realistic explanation for why the nation is borrowing at a breathtaking pace while essential development and public confidence are seemingly crumbling.

The Unthinkable Math of National Debt
At the heart of the controversy is a massive budget that vastly outstrips the country’s projected income. Senator Marcoleta, known for his relentless and detailed scrutiny, did not mince words when he broke down the sheer magnitude of the proposed spending.

The proposed P6.79-trillion budget for 2026, as confirmed by the Finance Secretary, is expected to be financed by only around P5 trillion in projected government revenues, leaving a staggering deficit of approximately P1.7 trillion. This figure, as Marcoleta meticulously computed, translates to an unbelievable daily borrowing requirement: P4.7 billion per day, or P197 million every single hour.

Marcoleta’s objective in presenting these granular figures was simple but devastatingly effective: to make the abstract numbers sink into the consciousness of every Filipino taxpayer. It is a powerful, almost paralyzing visualization of a nation living on borrowed time, raising the unavoidable question: “Where is all this money going, and why are we not seeing tangible, positive results?”

The senator’s intense scrutiny was a direct challenge to the competence of the current administration’s fiscal management. The core message was clear: if the nation must borrow this much, then the economic returns must be visible, impactful, and proportionate to the massive debt being incurred. For Marcoleta, simply stating that “we need to spend to grow the economy” is an insufficient and dangerous platitude when the numbers suggest a policy of borrowing without the corresponding growth to pay it back.

The Economic Slump: Anemic Growth and Bleak Prospects
Marcoleta’s financial inquisition was set against a backdrop of grim economic indicators. The recently announced 4% Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth for the third quarter of 2025 was a significant slowdown from the previous quarter’s 5.5%, falling short of the government’s already revised targets.

This “anemic” growth, as business leaders have described it, casts a long shadow over the economic projections used to justify the P6.79-trillion budget. The Finance Secretary had previously suggested the economy needed to grow by as much as 7.5% to achieve a P30-trillion economic size and successfully manage the debt load. With the actual growth rate far below even the government’s conservative target of 5-6%, the senator expressed profound concern.

Marcoleta cited alarming reports from the business sector: the Philippine stock market is among the worst in the region, the local currency is struggling, and foreign direct investments have dropped significantly. He quoted powerful industry captains from the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI), the Federation of Philippine Industry (FPI), and the Management Association of the Philippines (MAP), all expressing deep worry.

According to these industry leaders, the current climate is marked by:

High Costs and Limited Financing: Small and medium enterprises are struggling.

Investor Risk Aversion: A deep-seated lack of confidence from both local and foreign investors.

The Corruption Factor: The biggest headwind is the perception of corruption, which has led to a slowdown in government projects and dampened overall business confidence.

For the senator, these are not just economic headwinds; they are the consequence of a crisis of confidence directly linked to issues of governance and transparency.

The Construction Conundrum: A Scandal’s Ripple Effect
A critical point of the debate centered on the construction industry—a major driver of the economy—which saw its growth contract by 0.5% in the third quarter. Marcoleta directly attributed this alarming slowdown to the infamous flood control corruption scandal.

The senator argued that the crackdown on corruption, while necessary, has unfortunately paralyzed public construction. Fear of being embroiled in a scandal, coupled with stricter validation measures and delayed disbursements, has put the brakes on vital infrastructure spending. This has a massive, cascading effect across the economy, impacting everything from hardware stores and delivery trucks to the steel, cement, and aggregates industries.

Furthermore, Marcoleta exposed a profound institutional failure: the lack of a comprehensive, integrated flood control master plan. He pointed out that billions were wasted on disconnected, isolated flood control projects—even if technically built—because they failed to deliver any “strategic national impact.” In a shocking revelation regarding the 2026 budget, it was stated that no new flood control projects would be appropriated until a proper master plan is in place.

While this commitment to planning is a step forward, the senator highlighted the immediate danger: a sudden stop in flood control spending leaves vulnerable communities defenseless against future typhoons and calamities, prioritizing bureaucratic fear over citizen safety.

The Maharlika Investment Fund: A Promise Unfulfilled?
The debate also focused sharply on the performance of the Maharlika Investment Fund (MIF). Marcoleta questioned whether the initial investments and returns justified taking funds from crucial development banks (DBP and Land Bank) that traditionally finance national development projects.

While the MIF is mandated to focus on high-impact sectors like energy and agriculture, the investments thus far—including a port operator, a bridge financing for a mining company, and government securities—did not appear to satisfy the senator that the fund was fulfilling its promise of accelerating long-term socioeconomic development beyond what the source banks could have already achieved. For Marcoleta, the MIF’s initial performance seemed to lack the compelling evidence needed to reassure the public that their development funds were being put to better, more impactful use.

A Call for Granular, Strategic Action
Ultimately, Senator Marcoleta’s interpellation was a demand for strategic, granular planning over ambitious, yet seemingly unfundable, targets. He pressed the economic managers to provide concrete, detailed analyses—such as the input-output table—to demonstrate which industries would actually be supported and how a P6.79-trillion budget would tangibly increase the per capita GDP of Filipinos, which currently stands at a meager $4,500 compared to other developed nations.

Marcoleta’s final plea resonated with the frustrations of an entire nation: the government must learn to “cut the cloth according to its size.” If the resources are finite, then every peso must be allocated strategically. The budget must be a tool for realistic, effective change, not a vehicle for endless borrowing that only deepens the country’s fiscal hole and fails to address the widespread poverty and economic vulnerability plaguing the nation. The outcome of this debate will determine not just the 2026 budget, but the nation’s economic trajectory for years to come.