On Monday, November 17, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Makati City is set to pass the 2026 local government budget, a Php 21-billion spending plan that restructures key offices, redirects sensitive funding lines, and expands procurement-heavy departments without the transparency the public deserves.

We, as Makatizens, express our strong opposition to its passage in its current form. This is not a protest against public services. This is a protest against a budget that centralizes power, weakens institutional safeguards, and mirrors the same patterns now under Senate scrutiny involving Mayor Nancy Binay and her long-time aide who currently controls one of Makati’s largest spending departments.

A closer examination of the Office of the Mayor reveals inconsistencies that demand explanation. Funding for casual and contractual workers climbs from Php 77.483 million in 2025 to Php 186.776 million in 2026, indicating a major surge in personnel. Yet the office supplies budget falls drastically from Php 2.375 million to Php 0.866 million. A workforce that more than doubles cannot plausibly operate with a supplies allocation that shrinks by nearly two-thirds. This mismatch suggests that the budget may have been structured to obscure true allocations or to shift resources away from transparent line items. At the same time, capital outlay for motor vehicles under the mayor’s office expands from Php 12.439 million to Php 50 million, all without a published fleet plan documenting the number of vehicles, intended users, justification for replacement, or rationale for expansion. These inconsistencies raise fundamental questions about internal planning and financial discipline within the mayor’s office.

The most troubling shift involves the Sangguniang Panlungsod. Its budget for casual employees, which stood at Php 64.074 million in 2024 and Php 100.98 million in 2025, drops to zero in the 2026 proposal. The absence of this entire line item is not accidental. It coincides almost exactly with the surge of casual salaries under the Office of the Mayor. This implies that the funding for legislative casual staff has been absorbed into the mayor’s office despite the mayor having no legislative mandate. Such a setup undermines the independence of the council, creates political dependency, and violates basic public finance norms that require each branch of government to control its own personnel resources. In a modern local government, transferring the council’s staff budget to the mayor is indefensible and opens the door to overt political leverage over legislative operations.

The General Services Department, headed by Carleen Yap-Villa, shows even more dramatic increases. The budget for other supplies and materials increases from Php 15.833 million to Php 35.954 million. Environmental and sanitary services rise from Php 79.046 million to Php 130.59 million. Janitorial services expand from Php 170.8 million to Php 215.8 million, while security services grow from Php 354.586 million to Php 404.5 million. The line for other general services climbs from Php 297.509 million to Php 445.874 million. Most striking of all is the capital outlay for machinery and equipment, which jumps from Php 0.28 million in 2025 to Php 23.7 million in 2026. These increases push GSD’s total appropriations from roughly Php 2.434 billion in 2025 to about Php 2.888 billion in 2026. These are the very types of procurement-driven accounts where overpricing and manipulation are easiest to conceal, especially when oversight is weak and disclosures are absent. Yet no public procurement plan, itemized project list, or cost justification has been provided to explain these abrupt changes.

These budget patterns cannot be separated from the allegations emerging in the Senate flood-control hearings. Former DPWH Undersecretary Roberto Bernardo testified that Yap-Villa coordinated billion-peso project lists as early as 2018 for then-Senator Nancy Binay. Bernardo stated that Yap-Villa requested project packages amounting to Php 1.882 billion in 2022, Php 2.5 billion in 2023, and Php 1.672 billion for 2024, with alleged “commitment” rates starting at 12 percent and rising to 15 percent for faster release. He further claimed that there were two cash deliveries in Horseshoe Village worth roughly Php 200 million and Php 340 million, as well as a request for a Php 50-million “holiday advance.” Other reports referenced an estimated Php 468-million commitment tied to a Php 3.12-billion project package. Mayor Binay denies these allegations and maintains she has no involvement in any irregularities. Still, the detail and magnitude of these testimonies raise legitimate concerns, especially now that her long-time aide implicated in these Senate hearings is the same official controlling GSD’s ballooning procurement budget.

Additional increases in other departments further highlight the need for scrutiny. The Human Resource Development Office’s training and scholarship fund jumps from Php 3.56 million in 2025 to Php 21.99 million in 2026, without any published training plan to justify a six-fold expansion. Ospital ng Makati’s internet subscription costs rise from Php 3.6 million to Php 5.5 million, an unusual increase for a utility line that typically remains stable unless there are major system upgrades, which have not been disclosed. The combination of these budgetary changes suggests that Makati’s 2026 budget is not simply an expansion for public benefit, but a significant restructuring that may expose large pools of money to unchecked discretion.

For a city already facing questions about senior citizen benefits, delayed salaries, underwhelming disaster readiness, and rising costs for basic services, the proposed 2026 budget does not inspire confidence. Instead, it raises a deeper question: if billions in alleged commitments were being arranged during Mayor Binay’s time in the Senate, what safeguards prevent similar practices now that she controls an even larger pool of public funds within Makati’s executive branch?

We therefore urge the Sangguniang Panlungsod to withhold approval of the 2026 executive budget and return it to the executive department for a full revision. The revised budget must restore the Sangguniang Panlungsod’s personnel funds to the council, provide transparent procurement and staffing plans, justify major increases with detailed documentation, and remove or restructure allocations that pose risks to public accountability.

The people of Makati are not rejecting city services. We are demanding that public funds be protected from political misuse and that every peso serve the community instead of private commitments.