What happens to the vetoed payment for personnel services?

Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!

Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.

Visit Suniway.ph to learn

January 7, 2026 | 8:24am

MANILA, Philippines — President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.'s veto of a P43.24-billion item for personnel services in the 2026 national budget has sparked concern among lawmakers, with critics warning it could affect government hiring later this year.

The vetoed line item, listed as "For Payment of Personnel Services Requirements," was flagged earlier by ACT Teachers Party-list Rep. Antonio Tinio after it was transferred to unprogrammed appropriations (UA) during bicameral deliberations, making it dependent on excess revenues rather than guaranteed funding.

The item was among seven UA allocations vetoed by Ferdinand Marcos Jr. when he signed the 2026 General Appropriations Act.

What the DBM says. The Department of Budget and Management said the veto would not disrupt the payment of salaries or benefits for government personnel, stressing that mandatory compensation is already lodged in the budgets of respective agencies.

Budget Secretary Rolando Toledo said personnel benefits are guaranteed and earned, covering both civilian employees and military and uniformed personnel.

In his veto message, Marcos echoed this assurance.

"I specifically note that the scheduled increases in benefits of our civil servants, including our military and uniformed personnel, are part of programmed expenditures and will not be affected by the veto of the pertinent purpose of the UA," he said on Monday, January 5.

Lawmakers warn of impact on hiring

Senate Finance Committee Chair Win Gatchalian said the vetoed P43.24 billion would not affect current employees but could constrain agencies seeking to expand manpower later in the year.

"Pwede lang maapektuhan ang new hires kung may balak pa ang executive na kumuha ng bagong tao," Gatchalian said.

(New hires may be affected if the executive plans to hire additional personnel.)

He said the issue could be addressed by tapping the president's contingency fund or identifying alternative funding sources through the DBM.

Tinio, however, criticized the veto, saying it effectively confirms that new hires and retirement-related personnel requirements could be placed at risk.

He also faulted the DBM for addressing only P24 billion previously associated with the Miscellaneous Personnel Benefits Fund, rather than the full P43.24 billion vetoed under unprogrammed appropriations.

"The DBM statement is deceptive and does not address the veto of P43.2 billion for personnel requirements in the Unprogrammed Appropriations and how this will negatively impact hiring and retirement benefits," Tinio said.

Philstar.com has sought comment from the DBM and will update this story once a response is received.