FY 2027 General Appropriations Bill Day 3

Optical Media Board (OMB): OMB sponsor Representative Lolita T. Javier stated a proposed FY 2027 budget of ₱53.462 million, compared with ₱47.32 million for FY 2026. She described the increase as ₱6.430 million, or 13.67%; those reported change figures do not reconcile with the two totals.

Congress of the Philippines (Congress): The proposed FY 2027 Congress budget was ₱27.89 billion in aggregate for the Senate, Senate Electoral Tribunal, Commission on Appointments, House of Representatives, and House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal.

Department of Foreign Affairs and attached agencies (DFA): Sponsor Representative Sancho Fernando "Ando" F. Oaminal presented approximately ₱35.17 billion for FY 2027 for DFA and its attached Foreign Service Institute, Presidential Commission on Visiting Forces, and UNESCO National Commission of the Philippines. He described this as 21.77% higher than the FY 2026 General Appropriations Act.

Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB): The opening presentation describes MTRCB as self-sustaining, with income funding maintenance and other operating expenses and capital outlay, while personal services are submitted for congressional approval; its opening total and fiscal-year wording are garbled. Later, budget sponsor Representative Lolita T. Javier asked support for ₱49.987 million in personal services. Representative Jesus "Bong" C. Suntay separately cited an approximately ₱197 million calendar-year 2027 MTRCB budget about 19% below a previous ₱244 million budget; the scope of that comparison is not reconciled with the opening account or the personal-services request.

Film Development Council of the Philippines (FDCP): For FY 2027 budget sponsor Representative Lolita T. Javier’s proposed total is transcribed as "₱311,743 million." Javier also described a ₱55.606 million (15.14%) decrease from the FY 2026 budget of ₱367.349 million. The comma and total formatting are ambiguous in the transcript and are left unreconciled.

Philippine Space Agency (PhilSA): Budget sponsor Representative John Geesnell "Baba" Yap reported a proposed FY 2027 National Expenditure Program budget of approximately ₱1.316 billion, versus approximately ₱1.470 billion under the FY 2026 General Appropriations Act. He described a reduction of about ₱153.6 million, or 10.45%; the totals were approximate.

Climate Change Commission (CCC): The proposed FY 2027 CCC budget was ₱183,482,000, stated as ₱132,801,000 (41.99%) lower than the FY 2026 budget. In a later round, Representative Renee Louise M. Co joined calls for a stronger CCC budget and said she would move for an increase at the proper time; she made no increase motion in that exchange, and no amount was specified. Budget sponsor Representative John Geesnell "Baba" Yap also said CCC had requested a higher budget, without stating a requested total.

Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP): The House took up the proposed CCP budget, but this segment states no numerical budget proposal or request.

Commission on the Filipino Language (KWF): Budget sponsor Representative Ed Christopher S. Go described the FY 2027 allocation as around ₱120 million and identified an additional ₱27.5 million for priority programs, for which he sought augmentation; no disposition of that request appears in the presentation. In a later round Representative Antonio L. Tinio cited ₱115.714 million in the General Appropriations Bill for KWF. These are different stated figures and their bases are not reconciled. In a later round, the sponsor said ₱4.7 million was allocated in FY 2027 for Filipino Sign Language interpreting systems and KWF needed an additional ₱27 million for implementation, confirmed an institutional-amendment submission and said two Deaf officers' proposed plantilla positions were included; Tinio said he would support the amendment if submitted. No approval is recorded. The exchange does not establish whether this FSL request is included in or additional to the opening ₱27.5 million priority-program package.

National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA) and attached cultural agencies: The proposed budgets were taken up jointly for NCCA, the National Archives of the Philippines (NAP), the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP), and the National Library of the Philippines (NLP). The segment gives no numerical proposal or request for the joint deliberation.

Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR): DENR sponsor Deputy Speaker Jose C. Alvarez characterized the proposed FY 2027 budget as roughly ₱28 billion, for the environment, oceans and land. The brief sponsorship statement gave no program breakdown. In the NWRB discussion, Alvarez also referred to an additional ₱668 million request without specifying its program scope. Representative Presley C. De Jesus expressed support for DENR's budget and urged an increase, but no appropriation increase was approved in that round. Later, Representative Leila M. de Lima challenged the department's request for a further ₱1 billion in 2027 against rising unused appropriations; Alvarez described unused funds carried forward as a continuing appropriation, without specifically resolving the additional-request question. The relation, if any, between the ₱668 million request and the separate department-wide ₱1 billion figure is not established.

Sponsor account: Budget sponsor Representative Lolita T. Javier described OMB’s mandate under Republic Act No. 9239 as promoting and protecting intellectual property rights by regulating the manufacture, mastering, replication, import, export, distribution and sale of optical media and its technical variations nationwide.

Rep. Presley C. De Jesus: Representative Presley C. De Jesus cited ₱56 million as the proposed FY 2027 NEP total for OMB and compared it with ₱50 million in 2026 programs. These were his stated figures; the opening presentation gave a different FY 2027 NEP amount, and this round did not reconcile the difference.

He raised the budget while noting that Senate Bill No. 1654, which would abolish OMB and transfer its functions, records, assets and resources to the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines, had passed the Senate but was still awaiting House action. Budget sponsor Representative Lolita T. Javier said OMB remained legally in operation under Republic Act No. 9239 and needed funds for its legal mandates, employee salaries and daily operating costs while the bill remained pending.

Asked whether OMB supported transferring its functions and assets to the Intellectual Property Office if the bill passed both houses, Javier first said the Board submitted to Congress’s judgment, then said she personally favored the transfer. Javier also said OMB had submitted an opposition paper to the Senate and that OMB appeared there; De Jesus confirmed that the Senate decision remained unchanged after the appearance. The House had not yet enacted the measure, so the exchange recorded conditional support for a possible transfer rather than an implemented change.

Asked about OMB’s primary function, Javier said it continued its work monitoring storage devices, including K-pop media arriving in the Philippines, which OMB regulates and checks before issuing permits.

De Jesus asked about 92 authorized positions and said only 46 were filled. Javier confirmed the 92-position figure. She attributed limited staffing to personnel transferring as the agency wound down, heads serving only in an officer-in-charge capacity and limited manpower; she said OMB lacked authority to hire. De Jesus observed that consultants, contract workers or job-order workers handled regular functions and that staff had to multitask; Javier agreed. De Jesus referred to OMB’s 20 years of existence, which Javier affirmed, and thanked the agency as the bill’s possible passage approached.

Rep. Jernie Jett V. Nisay: Representative Jernie Jett V. Nisay asked which OMB functions must continue while Congress considers proposals to abolish the Board and move its functions to the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines. Budget sponsor Representative Lolita T. Javier identified registration and licensing, inspections, and hearings on administrative cases. Nisay noted that piracy and content distribution have shifted from physical media to online channels and asked which functions existing agencies could not assume. Javier said OMB continues to inspect materials and review their content before issuing licenses. Nisay said intellectual-property protection remains important but urged that the Board’s structure fit the changed distribution landscape.

Nisay described the proposed 2027 OMB budget first as ₱53.5 million, then as more than ₱53.4 million, compared with ₱47.0 million in the 2026 GAA. He asked what additional capabilities the proposal would fund amid possible institutional changes. Javier attributed the increase to salary and wage adjustments and higher maintenance and other operating expenses (MOOE). Nisay asked whether the added funding addressed enforcement needs or continued existing operations.

Nisay said the 2027 staffing summary listed 92 authorized positions, with 46 filled, and characterized this as a 50% vacancy rate. Javier said employees had moved elsewhere and that OIC heads lacked authority to hire. Nisay then asked whether staffing could sustain the 2027 target of acting on 3,000 inspection orders, with 100% acted on within the prescribed timeframe. Javier called staffing a major problem and said OMB was seeking funding to continue its mandate.

Nisay questioned whether keeping the Philippines off the U.S. Trade Representative’s Section 301 watch list was sufficient to measure OMB’s effectiveness as piracy shifts online, and asked whether the Board tracks domestic reductions in piracy or copyright infringement. Javier said OMB viewed the country’s absence from the list as an indication that it continued performing its mandate; she did not identify a domestic reduction measure in this exchange. Nisay closed by stressing the need to preserve enforcement capability and protect Filipino creators and legitimate creative industries through any institutional transition.

Nisay moved to end OMB sponsorship and debate. The majority joined the motion, and the presiding officer terminated interpellation without objection.

Sponsor account: Sponsor Representative Maria Carmen S. Zamora said the proposal would strengthen Congress’s legislation, representation and oversight functions. With no minority members wishing to interpellate, Representative Presley C. De Jesus moved to end sponsorship and debate. The majority joined, and Deputy Speaker Yevgeny Vincente B. Emano terminated interpellations without objection.

Sponsor account: Budget sponsor Representative Sancho Fernando "Ando" F. Oaminal described DFA’s three foreign-policy pillars as national security, economic security, and protection of the rights and welfare of Filipinos overseas. He said the Philippines, as chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), would host more than 640 meetings during the year. He cited the May 2026 Cebu summit’s ASEAN Leaders’ Declaration on Maritime Cooperation, which provides for an ASEAN Maritime Center to be hosted by the Philippines. He also described bilateral and multilateral partnerships as supporting alliances, trade and investment, and people-to-people ties, with maritime security a continuing priority. He identified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the 2016 arbitral award as the country’s twin anchors in the West Philippine Sea.

Oaminal said DFA foreign-service posts assist Filipinos affected by conflict in the Middle East and coordinate with the Department of Migrant Workers (DMW) and other partners on repatriation and related assistance. He said DFA also engages governments and international organizations to safeguard Filipino seafarers and Philippine-flagged vessels in conflict-affected or high-risk areas. DFA remains responsible for non-worker Filipinos overseas, including students, tourists and permanent residents, and takes a lead role where no resident migrant workers’ office is present.

Oaminal reported that in 2026 DFA processed more than 1.5 million passports and provided services through 42 consular offices nationwide. The proposed FY 2027 budget would support preparations for a next-generation Philippine passport with enhanced security, updated contactless-chip technology and an option for additional pages, alongside continued information and communications technology, cybersecurity and data-protection investments. He said new embassies in Accra, Ghana, and Astana, Kazakhstan, were expected to open that year, while a Consulate General in Miami, Florida, was scheduled for 2027. He said the posts would bring services closer to Filipino communities and strengthen political and economic engagement.

Rep. Presley C. De Jesus: Representative Presley C. De Jesus questioned sponsor Representative Sancho Fernando “Ando” F. Oaminal about overseas voting. De Jesus cited the committee-briefing account that ₱44.5 million had been appropriated for FY 2027 online voting and overseas-voter registration information campaigns; Oaminal confirmed it. Asked about persistently low turnout, Oaminal listed overseas workers’ mobility and work constraints, country restrictions and geographic dispersion, limited awareness of registration and the process, and doubts that votes make an impact. He said the latter was not necessarily distrust of the process; some voters felt their votes would not matter. DFA was conducting and planning more training and information campaigns.

Oaminal said turnout ranged from 24.16% in Asia and the Pacific to 7.9% in North and Latin America. He put the 2025 overseas registration total at 1,241,690 and said approximately 228,000 voted, or 18.4%. He attributed low participation to several factors, including digital literacy, and said DFA’s regional training covered registration and how to vote; the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) was involved. When De Jesus asked for past-year spending data, Oaminal said DFA was still gathering it.

De Jesus asked when Congress would receive a costed proposal for a hybrid or revised overseas voting system, including lessons from the 2025 turnout. Oaminal did not give a delivery date or costed proposal; he described training, information dissemination, direct communication with registered overseas Filipinos, and coordination with COMELEC as planned efforts. He hoped turnout would rise and expected COMELEC to increase its efforts, without giving a numeric target.

De Jesus asked whether overseas voting was funded separately by DFA and COMELEC. Oaminal said DFA had a separate ₱44.4 million for the purpose in 2026, while COMELEC had its own budget, for which he had no figures. Asked about duplication, he said travel costs were charged to each agency’s own office and that DFA and COMELEC had counterpart training expenses; he assured De Jesus that the expenses did not duplicate one another.

De Jesus asked Oaminal to confirm reports that DFA had lodged 39 diplomatic protests against China in 2026 and 296 from 2022 through 2026; Oaminal confirmed both figures. De Jesus also cited an approximately ₱14.48 billion 2027 request for the diplomacy program, which Oaminal confirmed. Asked how DFA assesses whether protests achieve diplomatic results, Oaminal said he believed the notes had helped tone down aggression and tensions, and that China had answered some notes individually and others in combined replies. He said there was no one-to-one correspondence between notes and responses and pointed to fewer reported attacks on Filipino fishermen and the Coast Guard as signs of lower tensions; he attributed that in part to the notes. He did not identify a formal performance framework or a measure of changed operational behavior at sea.

On the September 11 flare incident, Oaminal said DFA was preparing a diplomatic protest but would send it after receiving the complete incident report.

De Jesus cited the combined Consular and Assistance to Nationals (ATN) program as rising from approximately ₱7.47 billion in 2026 to ₱13.63 billion in 2027, an 82.4% increase; Oaminal agreed with that framing. De Jesus questioned the increase against 2025 utilization, which he said was 65% obligated and 38% disbursed, and asked what an additional ₱6.6 billion would buy. Oaminal described ATN as an insurance-like reserve used according to assistance requests, not an amount that must be spent in full; unused prior-year funds return to the National Treasury. He said DFA requests around ₱1 billion annually for ATN and around ₱200 million for the Legal Assistance Fund.

When De Jesus asked whether a ₱5.2 billion increase was for home-office MOOE, Oaminal said the ₱5.8 billion budget he was referring to was for passport procurement and production. Asked for the breakdown of a ₱13 billion total, Oaminal sought clarification about ₱13.8 billion; Oaminal said ₱12.4 billion would go to consular services, including passport production and apostille certificates, among other items. The exchange does not reconcile the ₱13 billion and ₱13.8 billion figures or provide a full breakdown.

Oaminal said ATN functions for overseas Filipino workers had shifted to the Department of Migrant Workers (DMW). DFA continued assisting non-working overseas Filipinos, including tourists, students and dual citizens in emergencies, as well as OFWs in locations without DMW offices. He said there were 48 DMW satellite offices; some shared embassy space with DFA, while others rented separate offices. He described the budget line items as overlapping but said the agencies served different groups and distinguished the groups of people each agency serves.

De Jesus asked for DFA’s position on a note reportedly passed to the Secretary of National Defense at an international forum in South Korea, which De Jesus described as criticizing the 2016 South China Sea arbitration ruling. Oaminal said DFA respected the statements of the Secretary of National Defense and would continue addressing aggression diplomatically. He said the office was waiting for full incident details and that officials would evaluate whether to issue a diplomatic note. De Jesus argued that the incident warranted a protest; Oaminal replied that differences in position are better handled through established diplomatic channels and with the courtesy expected in official international engagements.

Rep. Renee Louise M. Co: Representative Renee Louise M. Co first asked sponsor Representative Sancho Fernando “Ando” F. Oaminal whether the DFA coordinates and advises on treaty negotiations, ratification and entry into force, and helps determine whether agreements require legislative concurrence; Oaminal confirmed. She recalled that the Philippines signed the Basel Convention in 1989 and ratified it in 1993, then asked about the Basel Ban Amendment, which she said was adopted in 1995 and became international law in 2019. Oaminal said the DFA had ratified the main agreement but not the protocols, and would coordinate with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) about their status. He agreed that the DFA would submit a report when ready, even without a definitive update on the protocols.

Co said the Basel Convention permits trade with non-parties only under bilateral agreements with protections equal to or stronger than the Convention. She cited more than 250 electronic-waste shipments from the United States imported by the Philippines in the past year and said the imports were illegal because the United States is not a party. Oaminal said the DFA was unaware of the information. Co asked whether the DFA knew of any bilateral agreement or planned legal revision that would allow such imports; Oaminal said it knew of none, but would look into the matter and evaluate responsibility for any violations. Co said existing U.S. agreements allow it to receive hazardous waste from the Philippines, with similar agreements involving Malaysia and Costa Rica, but that no agreement provides for the reverse flow of U.S. waste to the Philippines. She raised the risk that a future agreement could undermine the Basel Ban Amendment and asked for a commitment against arrangements that contravened existing agreements. Oaminal said the DFA would coordinate with regulatory agencies to evaluate possible violations and would not support efforts that contradict existing laws.

Asked how many visiting-forces agreements were active, Oaminal said the DFA counted five. He listed the United States, Australia, Japan, Canada and New Zealand, then clarified that the agreement with France was still awaiting Senate concurrence. Co asked whether the Japan–Philippines Reciprocal Access Agreement was similar to a visiting-forces agreement; Oaminal said it was practically the same. At Co’s request, he agreed to submit written answers to her questions.

Representative Renee Louise M. Co asked whether the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) was preparing for a possible November visit by U.S. President Donald Trump and whether funding was set aside. Sponsor Representative Sancho Fernando “Ando” F. Oaminal said there was no official confirmation of the visit, but the DFA had made preparations and used an annual maintenance and other operating expenses allocation for visits by foreign dignitaries. He identified ₱20 million under the DFA’s FY 2026 General Appropriations Act budget for such visits; the amount is not limited to a possible Trump visit and also covers other foreign dignitaries. He said the DFA had not requested a reallocation and that the Office of the President had its own budget for these activities. Co requested a report on the remaining amount available for a possible visit, and Oaminal agreed to provide it.

Co questioned whether the U.S.–Philippines critical-minerals memorandum of understanding gave the United States preferential access to identify projects, financing tied to exporting minerals to the United States and limits on the Philippines’ other trade and investment partners, without comparable rights for the Philippines. Oaminal identified the document as an agreement signed on February 4 by the Philippine environment secretary and the U.S. undersecretary of state for economic affairs. He said the DFA had reviewed it and saw no problem, but that the department which represented the Philippines at signing was better placed to explain its terms; he directed the detailed questions to DENR’s later deliberation. Co maintained that the arrangement appeared asymmetric and raised concerns about reciprocity and Philippine sovereignty. Oaminal said the DFA considered it mutually beneficial and not detrimental, and said that if implemented it could increase investment, allow mineral processing in the Philippines, create jobs and add value to raw materials. Co asked what employment opportunities he meant; he described local processing of minerals now exported raw, and agreed that this could support additional industries. Co remained concerned and said she would put the questions to the relevant departments later.

Rep. Sarah Jane I. Elago: Representative Sarah Jane I. Elago asked sponsor Representative Sancho Fernando “Ando” F. Oaminal how DFA supports the Philippines’ obligations under the Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, for which the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) is the central authority. Oaminal said DFA facilitates negotiations of agreements and routes endorsement letters; he said applicants applying abroad pay no fee to the Philippines or DFA, with minimal expenses covered by DFA MOOE and other expenses under DSWD. Elago raised the Convention’s broader assistance expectations, including legal advice, help bringing cases before authorities, travel and required documentation, legal representation, and exemption from proceeding costs.

Asked how many countries have mutual legal assistance arrangements and what implementation gaps remained, Oaminal said DFA was reviewing and counting the data, then agreed to forward it to Elago’s office. He did not provide a country count during the exchange. Elago said families still struggled to obtain child or spousal support across jurisdictions despite the treaty.

In response to Elago’s question about GAD resources, Oaminal said approximately ₱7.1 million was allocated annually in both 2025 and 2026 for DFA GAD activities. The cited activities included Women in Diplomacy publications, regional GAD planning and leadership trainings, committee meetings and hearings, women’s month events, learning materials, and support for activities at foreign service posts. He said activities required project proposals, post-activity evaluation, and expense review by the Commission on Audit.

Elago asked how DFA could provide prompt support, including health-care professionals, for gender-based violence cases in countries without a Department of Migrant Workers (DMW) office. Oaminal said DFA’s gender and development (GAD) budget was mandated at 5% of the department’s total budget for maintenance and other operating expenses (MOOE); if it proved insufficient, DFA could use the Assistance to Nationals (ATN) Fund and Legal Assistance Fund for people needing help.

Asked about support for gender-related concerns at embassies and consulates, Oaminal said DFA had a point person and worked with the Philippine Commission on Women (PCW); he said PCW recognized DFA among the top three performing agencies out of more than 300 national government agencies for FY 2024. Elago asked about referrals for psychosocial or legal assistance and requested complete figures on domestic and gender-based violence cases handled since 2022. Oaminal agreed to send complete data to her office and said DFA would continue training over the next two years. Elago also sought coordination with DFA and DMW to ensure timely support in locations without a migrant workers’ office.

Elago said overseas voters’ confidence was low and asked whether DFA would support in-person, postal and online voting options, as well as consultations with overseas Filipinos. Oaminal said the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), as the lead agency, was moving toward fully online voting except in three countries. DFA supported the initiative through training, information campaigns and outreach to explain the process and importance of voting; he said COMELEC consults DFA but makes the decisions, while DFA informs voters about the approved process. Elago asked DFA to hear overseas Filipinos’ needs directly and highlighted COMELEC’s reported funding cuts for voter education and overseas satellite registration. She urged Congress to prioritize higher turnout and the additional enrollment required for online voting. No DFA commitment to host the requested focus groups was recorded.

Elago asked what diplomatic steps DFA takes to protect Filipino seafarers from blacklisting when they exercise the right to refuse sailing. Oaminal said DFA maintained ongoing communications with other countries to protect overseas Filipinos, including seafarers. Elago urged stronger protections, describing reports that some seafarers were later blocked from departing or renewing contracts after refusing to sail, and asked DFA to join a dialogue to strengthen protections and hear seafarers’ concerns. The unit records no direct response to that dialogue request.

Rep. Antonio L. Tinio: Representative Antonio L. Tinio described haze he said was affecting Metro Manila, Bacolod and Cebu, citing reported air-quality readings and school suspensions, and asked what caused the Indonesian fires. DFA sponsor Representative Sancho Fernando "Ando" F. Oaminal said the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) could not confirm what was causing the fires; he said haze had affected neighboring Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries in prior years and that the issue was already being discussed at ASEAN level. Tinio argued that fires linked to land clearing for palm-oil production were driving the haze and pressed DFA to know how long it would continue. Oaminal directed that question to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), which he said was the Philippine representative under the agreement and the agency expected to coordinate early warning and assess the pollution. Tinio challenged DFA's reliance on that referral, saying the cross-border impact made it a whole-of-government concern.

Tinio asked what the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution provides. Oaminal identified the 2002 agreement and its coordinating council, then described provisions for monitoring and assessing fires and haze, prevention and mitigation, early warning and information sharing, mutual assistance on request, regional resources and expertise, capacity building, and coordination when haze crosses borders. Tinio summarized the agreement as requiring states to prevent activities in their territory from harming other states, prompt responses to information or consultation requests, health and environmental risk assessments through the ASEAN Center, and the ability to call an extraordinary conference; Oaminal agreed when Tinio asked whether Indonesia had an obligation under the agreement. Tinio criticized the dispute process as limited to amicable consultation or negotiation, but said other avenues within the framework could be used. He cited Indonesia’s reported suspension of licenses and arrests, Malaysia’s ministerial visit to Jakarta, and Singapore’s memorandum of understanding with Indonesia, contrasting those responses with the Philippines’ participation.

Asked whether the Philippines attended the July 9 haze meeting, Oaminal said DFA was not part of it and assumed the environment department's representative had attended, but could not confirm that. Tinio challenged that assumption and asked about the next conference of parties. Oaminal said it was scheduled in Vietnam in October 2026, confirmed DFA would not attend and said the environment department was expected to represent the Philippines; he could not confirm whether its representative had attended the July meeting.

Tinio then asked what the Philippines would do as ASEAN chair at the November summit to address the haze and protect public health. Oaminal committed that the DFA Secretary would raise the issue at the next ministerial ASEAN meeting before the summit, and said DFA would coordinate with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Tinio said he would hold DFA to that commitment and expected the issue to be reflected in the summit statement. Oaminal added that DFA relied on DENR's expertise and coordinated with the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) and the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC), because DFA lacked scientific capacity to assess the haze.

Rep. Percival "Perci" Cendaña: Representative Percival "Perci" Cendaña asked about the reported denial of Harry Roque’s asylum application and the status of an International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) red notice. Budget sponsor Representative Sancho Fernando "Ando" F. Oaminal said the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), including its embassy in Austria, had not received official information on the asylum application. He said the Philippines respected Austria’s sovereign authority to apply its immigration and asylum laws.

Asked again about the red notice, Oaminal said it was a function of “DALG,” with the Philippine National Police (PNP) and Interpol. He confirmed that DFA held no official information on the matter.

Cendaña asked whether former Ako Bicol Representative Elizaldy "Zaldy" S. Co would be brought to the Philippines to face the cases against him. Oaminal replied that, under French law, information about asylum applications was strictly confidential and could not be shared with third parties; he reaffirmed the Philippines’ confidence in the impartiality and independence of the French system and recognized the French Republic’s authority to decide asylum requests. He did not give an extradition status in this exchange.

Cendaña asked about Apollo Quiboloy’s extradition application and DFA’s role. Oaminal said the matter was pending with the Department of Justice (DOJ), the lead agency. He initially said DFA would transmit a decision to the United States, but then corrected that statement: once it reaches a decision, DOJ—not DFA—would transmit it. Cendaña acknowledged the correction and linked the process to seeking justice for Quiboloy’s victims.

Cendaña moved to terminate interpellations on the DFA and attached-agency budget. After the Majority joined, the presiding officer amended the motion to include the attached agencies; with no objection, the House terminated those interpellations. This ended debate and did not approve the proposed appropriation.

Sponsor account: Under Presidential Decree No. 1986, budget sponsor Representative Lolita T. Javier said the MTRCB reviews and classifies film and television programs for audience suitability. Its stated priorities are to improve efficiency, modernize operations, engage the public and maintain effective regulation as the media industry changes, while safeguarding viewers’ interests and welfare.

Rep. Presley C. De Jesus: Representative Presley C. De Jesus asked whether Presidential Decree No. 1986, which he said dates from 1985, remains adequate as streaming, video-on-demand, social media and user-generated content have grown. He noted the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) had said it could regulate streaming if Congress expanded its jurisdiction. Sponsor Representative Lolita T. Javier agreed the MTRCB's scope should expand beyond movies and television and urged Congress to pass a new law covering additional platforms. De Jesus asked whether the change should amend the decree, create a new charter or use a separate online-services law; Javier supported new legislation that would broaden the Board's scope and potentially establish a content regulatory board.

Asked about fees or revenue shares from services such as Netflix, HBO, Disney and VivaMax, Javier said MTRCB received none because its present role was video review and classification.

De Jesus asked how many reviewers MTRCB had and whether streaming platforms and mobile reels generated revenue for the Board. Javier said there were 31 board members reviewing content and that MTRCB received no share from movie platforms. She described it as self-generating, said ₱640 million was in the Treasury, and asked colleagues to support the personal-services request summarized above.

De Jesus asked how MTRCB's role would differ from the Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT), the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC), law enforcement and the platforms, and what framework could address streaming content without prior review of every title. Javier said the agencies had different functions and MTRCB was limited to classifying movies and television. She described its administrative regulatory powers and feedback mechanism, and said a future law should hold platforms or agencies accountable when concerns arise. Javier said the named platforms had no Philippine office and identified Meta’s Singapore office. De Jesus urged local accountability and employment. Javier described MTRCB's present response as coordination while it lacked jurisdiction.

On repeated misclassification and sanctions, Javier described pre-air review and the PROTECT responsible-viewing campaign, including age guidance, screen-time limits, co-viewing, media literacy, family viewing plans, baseline and post-engagement surveys, and community impact assessments. She did not specify a sanction for repeat misclassification. Asked whether voluntary parental controls and age restrictions effectively prevent children from accessing adult content, Javier returned to the limited-jurisdiction point and the need for a new law rather than assessing their effectiveness.

De Jesus reiterated his support for updating the MTRCB's mandate, said he would look into legislation, and supported the agency's budget while urging stronger support for local films and the jobs they generate. He asked whether the Philippines could adopt a model like the Korea Media Rating Board. Javier said she fully supported the idea, arguing that if the MTRCB's remit grew to include streaming platforms, its revenue could increase and might eventually reduce its need for congressional funding. De Jesus again voiced support for the budget and a new charter; no bill or charter was adopted in this exchange.

Rep. Percival "Perci" Cendaña: Representative Percival "Perci" Cendaña raised recent school-violence incidents that he said were associated with violent games and content, and asked what the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) was doing. Sponsor Representative Lolita T. Javier said that since 2025 MTRCB had strengthened its responsible-viewing campaign through the Protect Framework, a standardized approach to media literacy and responsible viewing. She reported 57 activities reaching 6,763 participants in 2025; through August 2026, MTRCB had conducted 56 activities reaching 8,027 participants and collected 3,753 participant feedback responses. She said the agency planned to reach a wider audience in 2027 and establish a formal monitoring and evaluation system.

Asked what responsible viewing meant, Javier described baseline measures, post-engagement surveys and assessments in communities reached by the program. She said parental involvement helps MTRCB collect concrete data and assess awareness and possible community improvement. Cendaña then asked for measurable results and 2027 targets in light of MTRCB’s requested funding. Javier called for a new law extending review beyond movies and television to online platforms and content. She did not provide a specific 2027 target in that answer. Cendaña supported greater investment in media literacy and said he would support the legislation when advanced; Javier said they shared that objective.

Rep. Jernie Jett V. Nisay: Representative Jernie Jett V. Nisay asked how a “Do Not Amplify” approach could address violent and sexually graphic online content through recommendation, autoplay, age-gating and monetization controls without censoring lawful content. Sponsor Representative Lolita T. Javier argued that regulation should target systems that amplify harmful material rather than prohibit every violent post. She described risks from recommender systems, autoplay, viral circulation, monetization and recommendations to minors, and said a mechanism-focused approach was more constitutionally defensible than banning violent videos. Nisay agreed that actively recommending material to users, especially children, differs from leaving content available online.

Nisay also asked whether parents use MTRCB classifications and cited FY 2027 targets of 99% compliance among entities under its jurisdiction and review/classification of 100% of submitted movie, television and optical-media materials. Javier said the MTRCB favored regulating online platforms rather than banning them, subject to constitutional rights; she said protecting children may require new legislation and that regulating online video games would require a new structure. She did not explain how parental use or understanding of classifications was measured.

Nisay asked how the MTRCB decides between corrective action, seminars, warnings and heavier sanctions, citing complaints about the July 2026 series Sigabo and a compliance seminar for its production company. Javier said all programs must be reviewed and classified.

Nisay asked how the MTRCB considers full program context and incident circumstances, noting both a 12-day suspension in 2023 and other complaints dismissed for lack of merit. Javier said the matter had been carefully considered and emphasized seminars and artist literacy. Asked for criteria for dismissals, warnings or stronger sanctions, including for discriminatory, degrading or offensive content, Javier said an MTRCB adjudication committee handles cases and decides the penalties. Nisay said consistent standards should balance viewer protection, especially for young people, with media freedom. Her answer identified the deciding body without supplying the requested decision criteria.

Representative Jernie Jett V. Nisay cited an MTRCB FY 2027 proposed budget of more than ₱49 million, projected special-account resources above ₱144.5 million for FY 2027, and a special-account amount of ₱65.6 million for FY 2026. He asked for actual fee collections and how the resources support regulatory work. Sponsor Representative Lolita T. Javier said the agency was asking for ₱49 million for personal services, then specified ₱49.987 million for personal services. She also identified ₱100 million from the agency’s own funds and ₱640 million in the Treasury, and later said ₱108 million would come from its own funding. These are separately stated categories and amounts; the presentation does not reconcile the two own-funding figures or identify an original DBM submission.

Javier identified review and registration fees as the largest earnings sources. For FY 2025, she gave these shares: review fees 77.26%, registration fees 13.67%, import permit fees 0.17%, export permit fees 0%, and miscellaneous income 9.41%. The question asked for actual versus projected collection amounts and specific funded activities; the answer gave percentages but no collection totals or activity-level amounts.

Nisay expressed support for MTRCB efforts to protect viewers and young people, modernize regulation for new platforms and content, and seek legislative support to widen the agency’s responsiveness. Javier thanked him.

Rep. Jesus "Bong" C. Suntay: Representative Jesus "Bong" C. Suntay supported MTRCB’s proposed budget. He praised MTRCB Chairperson Diorella Maria Sotto-Antonio and cited the agency's unmodified opinions for calendar years 2024 and 2025, which he described as its seventh consecutive such opinion.

Suntay moved to terminate discussion of the MTRCB budget. Budget sponsor Representative Lolita T. Javier thanked him for his support, and Majority Leader Alexandria "Queenie" Gonzales joined the motion. With no objection, the presiding Deputy Speaker terminated interpellations. This disposition ended discussion; it did not approve the proposed appropriation.

Film Development Council of the Philippines (FDCP): Budget sponsor Representative Lolita T. Javier introduced the Film Development Council of the Philippines (FDCP), citing Act No. 9167 as its enabling law. She said the Council encourages quality films and content through development, production, exhibition and distribution; conducts events that develop Filipino talent and expand economic and cultural opportunities; leads film markets and festivals to position Philippine cinema globally; and preserves films as national and cultural heritage through archiving.

Rep. Jernie Jett V. Nisay: Representative Jernie Jett V. Nisay cited the Film Development Council of the Philippines (FDCP)'s proposed 2027 budget of ₱300.7 million and asked how it would sustain opportunities for Filipino filmmakers and film workers. Sponsor Representative Lolita T. Javier described nationwide youth filmmaker scholars and said filmmakers sometimes received only ₱50,000, warning that inadequate support could limit new ideas and high-quality local films. She said FDCP also prioritized film archiving, noting that older Filipino films were sometimes recovered from abroad and restoration could cost millions of pesos per film. Javier said restoration cost depended on the extent of damage, citing cases of ₱2 million and ₱1 million per film. She urged support for filmmakers and archiving.

Nisay cited 2027 targets that 30% of films receiving incentives or grants would be selected on merit and that 50% of award-winning producers, directors and actors would receive priority. Asked how the process would remain accessible to emerging filmmakers without awards or established connections, Javier said an independent selection committee applied criteria including creative merit, global appeal and economic impact.

Nisay then asked how the 2026 Create PH Films expansion—including animation and documentary projects and an increase in the maximum project-development grant from ₱300,000 to ₱500,000—would help filmmakers complete projects through production and post-production in 2027. Javier said the program provided financial and logistical support across filmmaking stages, including development, production, post-production, marketing, distribution, exhibition and archiving. Asked how many projects would be supported and completed or released in 2027, she gave no project count or completion target; she said selections depended on submitted-film quality and cited a ₱51 million program allocation.

Nisay asked how FDCP counted film workers receiving employment and what it did to create more sustainable jobs and livelihoods for crew, editors, production staff, designers, technicians, writers and other workers. Javier said the matter fell under the Film Academy of the Philippines rather than FDCP. She did not provide a counting method or describe an FDCP employment program in this exchange.

Nisay compared the FDCP's 2027 preservation targets—1,320 films evaluated and considered for restoration, 1,701 audiovisual elements managed and preserved, and one film restored—with one film actually restored in 2025, and asked why the annual restoration target was only one. Javier said Congress had provided no budget in the previous year for restoration and archiving. She asked for support so future generations could see older Filipino films and described filmmaker support and film archiving as FDCP priorities. The exchange does not give a restoration appropriation or a revised restoration target.

Nisay asked how the Student Film Assistance Program's 2026 grants of ₱30,000 to ₱50,000 could help students enter and remain in the professional film industry. Javier called the assistance valuable but said ₱50,000 might not be enough and asked for it to be increased; she described a director's teaching and outreach to encourage young filmmakers across regions and asked colleagues to support them. Nisay voiced support for FDCP's programs, filmmakers, film workers, young people and heritage. He began a termination motion but stopped when told another member had questions; interpellations continued.

Rep. Renee Louise M. Co: Representative Renee Louise M. Co welcomed the increase in the Create PH Films Project Development Grant from ₱300,000 to ₱500,000, while stressing that reimbursement-based grants can leave new filmmakers unable to begin production. She described established production houses as able to front ₱500,000 to ₱1 million while waiting for government tranches, but said emerging independent filmmakers without large reserves face a significant barrier. She asked how the Film Development Council of the Philippines (FDCP) would address that cash-flow gap.

Sponsor Representative Lolita T. Javier said FDCP provides training for young filmmakers to ensure funds reach them. She described a prior-year funding gap and asked Congress to support the current budget so young filmmakers could receive attention and support. Co reiterated her support for increased funding for the grant and SineKabataan, but said a reimbursement scheme could prevent young filmmakers from starting their films at all. She asked whether FDCP would streamline its finance procedures, partner with state financing institutions, or provide low-interest advances before or at contract signing.

Javier said FDCP follows Commission on Audit (COA) guidelines: 50% is released when a contract is signed, and a second tranche follows liquidation of the first payment. Co cited the Short Film Fund and Festival Development Assistance Program as offering support often between ₱150,000 and ₱500,000 through reimbursement. She appreciated the 50% signing release but asked whether FDCP could adopt a policy or emergency mobilization funds so early-stage grants provide operational cash up front instead of only reimbursing expenses afterward. Javier said no; FDCP depended on the budget Congress provided. Co closed by supporting additional funding and pathways for talented young filmmakers without industry connections or backers.

Co moved to terminate deliberations on the FDCP budget. The Majority joined the motion; after the presiding officer stated the joint motion, there was no objection and the interpellations on the proposed FDCP budget were terminated. This closed deliberations and did not approve the appropriation.

Sponsor account: Budget sponsor Representative John Geesnell "Baba" Yap said the budget supports the goal of becoming a space-capable and space-faring nation and delivering practical benefits to Filipinos. Through the planned completion and launch of MULA and development of MULA 2, PhilSA would strengthen applications in agriculture, disaster-risk reduction, environmental and infrastructure monitoring, national security and evidence-based governance. He said the agency would continue providing space-enabled data and services to government agencies and communities and investing in young people and future space scientists through astronomy, astrophysics, space-weather and other emerging-field programs. He sought support for approval of the FY 2027 budget and said he was ready for interpellations.

Rep. Antonio L. Tinio: Representative Antonio L. Tinio asked the Philippine Space Agency (PhilSA) sponsor, Representative John Geesnell "Baba" Yap, to clarify figures in the printed budget-bill copy for the agency's Space Science and Technology Application Program. Tinio cited ₱126.2 million in personnel services, ₱712 million in MOOE and a printed total of ₱727.9 million, which he said did not add up. Yap first called it a clerical error and stated ₱898,656,000 as the real amount, adding that it could be changed. After Tinio asked whether the figure was ₱838,000, Yap first echoed that shorthand, then confirmed ₱838,656,000; Tinio repeated the full figure. The exchange documents a proposed correction to the printed program figure, without establishing that the bill was subsequently amended; it provides no agency-wide total.

Tinio asked whether the ₱739.9 million Space Science and Technology Application Program component supported the President's announced 2027 sounding-rocket test launch in Cagayan. Yap said only a small portion would go to the launch, described an August project kickoff with PhilSA, the Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) and project partners, and said the launch was targeted for the first quarter of 2027. He said engineers were receiving hands-on training in Korea and the rocket was being assembled for shipment to the Philippines. Tinio identified Perigee as a Korean partner in developing and manufacturing the rocket, and Yap agreed. Asked about technology transfer and the risk of merely assembling a foreign company's rocket, Yap said transfer was underway through training; he described the objective as building people, technology, regulation, safety procedures and infrastructure for Philippine launch capability.

Asked for the launch cost, Yap said ₱100 million in 2026 and just over ₱6 million in 2027. Tinio characterized the first amount as part of the ₱739 million component. When asked what else it funded, Yap said it would support development of the MULA-2 satellite. The ₱739.9 million figure was discussed as a program component, not as the agency-wide budget total.

Yap described MULA-2 as a multispectral Earth-observation satellite for land assessment, with data intended to support agriculture, environmental protection and monitoring, natural-resource management, disaster-risk reduction and national security. He said it could capture up to 139,000 square kilometers of imagery per day, and that development began with the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) in 2021 before continuing with PhilSA in 2023. Asked about the national-security role, Yap said it was included in the Philippine Space Act. Tinio asked about the Philippine Space Council's leadership; Yap clarified that DOST was co-vice chair and that the President chaired the Council.

Tinio asked whether PhilSA or its programs were involved in Pax Silica. Yap said PhilSA was not involved or connected and had no knowledge of the initiative. Tinio then said PhilSA land at New Clark City would be used for Pax Silica; Yap agreed, said the agency would relocate, and then clarified that the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) would relocate the land. Tinio questioned how that fit with the agency's lack of involvement; the exchange leaves the agency-versus-land relocation wording unreconciled.

On the rocket launch, Yap confirmed Tinio's identification of Lal-lo Airport in Cagayan as an Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) site. Yap cited the eastern-seaboard location, existing launch infrastructure and the Cagayan Economic Zone Authority framework as reasons for the site. Tinio described U.S. military use of the airport and asked whether the U.S. military was involved in the project. Yap denied any project involvement and, when Tinio asked about current involvement, said that was the agency's account. Tinio said he would monitor developments and stressed developing a domestic industry that served Filipino interests.

Rep. Jernie Jett V. Nisay: Representative Jernie Jett V. Nisay asked the Philippine Space Agency (PhilSA) to weigh the benefits and risks of rocket-launch capability, including research, aerospace jobs and future commercial activity alongside safety, environmental, air- and maritime-traffic, and debris concerns. Budget sponsor Representative John Geesnell “Baba” Yap described the test launch as a step toward capabilities that could affect the economy, resilience and long-term national interests. He said the goal included developing people, technology, regulatory frameworks, safety procedures and infrastructure for Philippine launch capability.

Nisay cited PhilSA’s September 16 advisory for the Yinli-1 rocket launch, saying the projected debris zone was in the “Philippine EEC” and that warnings went to ships, aircraft, fishing boats and other vessels. He asked how monitoring and warnings were coordinated with aviation, coast guard, disaster-response and other agencies. Yap said an inter-agency technical working group coordinated with agencies to disseminate information; he did not describe the system’s readiness in greater detail.

Nisay asked about a continuing path from science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education to space-related employment, including partnerships with the Department of Science and Technology (DOST), Commission on Higher Education (CHED), Department of Education (DepEd), universities and private-sector organizations. Yap confirmed partnerships with different agencies but did not specify the partners. Asked for 2027 targets for researchers, scientists and engineers, he gave 2027 figures of 46 scholarships and 9 new graduates; the answer did not state a target count for people entering space-related jobs.

Nisay asked what PhilSA was doing to help Filipino start-ups, researchers, universities and private companies use space data and build space-enabled products, and how many organizations currently used PhilSA data or technologies. Yap described a space business innovation camp and a space innovation camp for 2026 as part of a 10-year plan. He gave no count of current company, start-up or academic users of PhilSA data.

Asked what concrete result PhilSA wanted Congress to see by the end of 2027, Yap pointed to launching and bringing the MULA satellite into operation. Nisay endorsed continued development of Philippine space capability and its application to disaster response, environmental and resource monitoring, and government information. He then moved to terminate debate on the proposed PhilSA budget; the Majority joined, and the presiding officer terminated the interpellation without objection. This ended debate and did not approve the appropriation.

Sponsor account: Budget sponsor Representative John Geesnell "Baba" Yap described the CCC as the government’s lead climate policymaking body, coordinating, monitoring and evaluating climate programs and mainstreaming climate considerations into national, sectoral and local plans, programs and investment. He cited intensifying cyclones, sea-level rise, heavy rainfall and rising temperatures, with growing costs and effects on agriculture, infrastructure and vulnerable communities. He said the CCC works to translate policy into risk-informed planning, investments and programs, advance the climate-finance agenda, and strengthen the use of climate-risk information for evidence-based decisions. He framed the budget as an investment in resilient communities, climate-responsive planning, infrastructure and livelihoods, and sought the Chamber’s support for approval.

Rep. Iris Marie Demesa Montes: Representative Iris Marie Demesa Montes asked which agencies, programs and climate-tagged expenditures the Climate Change Commission (CCC) would review for FY 2027, and what it could do when a climate tag lacked a clear rationale, measurable target or credible risk basis. Sponsor Representative John Geesnell "Baba" Yap said quality assurance included reviewing submissions. When Montes asked how many programs had been reviewed, rejected or corrected, Yap instead reported climate-change expenditure-tagging (CCET) process figures for 202 National Government Agencies (NGAs), 98 government-owned or -controlled corporations (GOCCs) and 119 state universities and colleges (SUCs): 148 NGAs, 57 GOCCs and 102 SUCs had completed the process, with compliance rates of 73.27%, 58.27% and 85.71%, respectively. He also stated an overall compliance rate of 73.27%. These are institution-level process-completion and compliance figures, not counts of climate-tagged programs rejected or corrected.

Montes questioned whether climate-policy responsibilities overlap among the CCC, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC), the Department of Finance (DOF) and other agencies, and asked for evidence that coordination produced unified action. Yap said the agencies met together and asserted that their duties and responsibilities did not overlap. Montes challenged that answer with concerns that climate finance was fragmented, difficult for local governments to access and lacked centralized monitoring. Yap cited interagency meetings and a development-partners coordinating group for discussing needs and disseminating information, particularly to local government units (LGUs). He acknowledged that access to international finance remained a major challenge; when Montes asked whether fragmented coordination contributed to missed deadlines and documentation problems, Yap agreed it was one factor and said the Commission was building capacity among NGAs.

Yap said a Climate Finance Unit had been requested under the Government Optimization Law. After Montes clarified that she was asking whether one already existed, Yap said it remained a proposal. He confirmed CCC supported creating it and sought the 20th Congress's support. Montes then disclosed that she had filed House Bill 8918 to create the unit. The exchange records support for the proposal, not an existing operational unit or an enacted bill.

Montes asked what programs would be affected by the CCC's lower 2027 proposed budget and which would be left unfunded or compromised. Yap said the Commission had requested a higher budget but understood the available budget; he identified LGU capacity building, data gathering and other programs as affected. Montes asked whether that capacity building addressed LGUs' difficulty preparing documentation and project proposals for the People's Survival Fund (PSF); Yap confirmed it did.

Asked whether the Commission had data on the annual economic and social costs of climate impacts, Yap said it had data but did not provide the estimate in this exchange. Montes argued for prevention alongside recovery; Yap agreed and pointed to the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) and the President's predictive-governance initiative.

Montes asked whether the FY 2027 budget treated farmers, fishers, informal-settler families, Indigenous Peoples, children, older people, persons with disabilities and women as groups with distinct climate risks and budget needs. Yap said support was included in NAP localization and Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) localization. Asked how the CCC coordinated with agriculture, fisheries, irrigation, water agencies and LGUs on drought, saltwater intrusion, crop failure, declining fisheries and water shortages already affecting livelihoods and prices, Yap cited interagency meetings to advance the NAP and a series of meetings with LGUs. He did not identify group-specific amounts or report a measured outcome from those meetings.

Montes asked how the Commission was helping the Philippines access international finance for climate-related loss and damage without adding debt, and whether it was preparing project pipelines and evidence-based claims. Yap said negotiations were underway and that this work was included in the Commission's development plan. He did not describe the financing mechanism, project pipeline, evidence process or how the financing would avoid new debt. In closing, Montes supported adequate CCC funding while challenging the Commission to demonstrate that its budget would strengthen protection and resilience, especially for vulnerable communities.

Rep. Renee Louise M. Co: Representative Renee Louise M. Co asked about a Climate Change Task Force associated with Commissioner Albert De La Cruz. Sponsor Representative John Geesnell “Baba” Yap said it was a volunteer group separate from the Climate Change Commission (CCC); he confirmed it had no allocation. Co then requested an updated Climate Change Expenditure Tagging (CCET) allocation breakdown for the current or coming fiscal year, and Yap said the Commission could provide a report.

Co questioned how CCC ensures agencies tag spending in line with climate goals, citing her concern that 83% of the NEP climate-tagged budget went to the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), with new roads and building retrofits classified as adaptation. Yap mentioned advantages such as improved power and post-analysis, and later confirmed CCC’s oversight role, National CCET Impact Assessment, annual orientations, and agency-level capacity building. He said the annual process takes place during budget season with the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). Co warned that tagging gray infrastructure without accounting for negative impacts or actual climate finance could overstate climate spending, and said CCC should have authority beyond serving as a repository of agencies’ submitted tags.

Asked how CCC tracks program implementation across agencies and local government units (LGUs), Yap described interagency meetings with LGUs and agency members. Co requested a report on capacity building and coordination showing how National Climate Action Program priorities are reflected in budgets; Yap agreed to submit it.

Co cited a Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) statement that no environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the Pax Silica Hub had been applied for or was in process, while an environmental compliance certificate had been issued for the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) environmental plan. She asked how CCC would ensure future Pax Silica-related appropriations were supported by risk and climate-impact assessments. Yap said the EIA was DENR’s mandate and CCC would assist with technical support, a climate lens and projections. He said CCC would assess the Hub’s climate-vulnerability effects in relation to the country’s NDC and low-carbon development; when Co asked whether an assessment existed, he said it was preliminary. Yap agreed to provide Co a copy of CCC’s preliminary assessment.

Co described the current CCC budget change as “almost 53%,” citing ₱316 million and ₱183 million, and asked how the reduced funding would support risk assessments such as the Pax Silica review. Her percentage description was not reconciled in this exchange.

Yap said CCC wanted a higher budget but would work within the available amount and assured the House it would carry out its required work. Asked which function would be most affected, he identified capacity building for LGUs. Co emphasized that LGUs prepare separate budgets and need support to align them with the National Climate Action Program and tagging rules. She said she would move for a CCC increase at the proper time; she made no increase motion in this exchange. At the close, Co asked whether the requested capacity-building and coordination report could be submitted on Monday, and Yap agreed.

Rep. Jernie Jett V. Nisay: Representative Jernie Jett V. Nisay cited the outlook for El Niño to continue through the first half of 2027, potentially reaching a very strong state with greater heat and below-normal rainfall, while noting recent heavy rains and strong typhoons. He asked how the CCC tracks LGU readiness for risks ranging from water shortages and agricultural losses to flooding and storms. Sponsor Representative John Geesnell “Baba” Yap said the Commission monitors implementation of LGU Local Climate Change Action Plans (LCCAPs).

Nisay expressed support for the CCC and said climate impacts reach food and prices, livelihoods, health, homes, infrastructure and security. He urged turning policy and risk assessments into concrete preparedness and programs for agencies, LGUs and communities, particularly as heat, drought, heavy rain and typhoons become less predictable. He then moved on behalf of the minority to terminate sponsorship and debate on the CCC budget; the majority joined, and the presiding Deputy Speaker, hearing no objection, terminated interpellations on the proposed budget. This was a procedural end to debate, not approval of the appropriation.

Budget deliberation concluded: The House approved taking up the proposed budget of the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP). After officials were acknowledged, budget sponsor Representative Ed Christopher S. Go said he was ready for interpellation. Representative Iris Marie Demesa Montes then moved to terminate budget deliberations; the Majority joined the motion, and the presiding Deputy Speaker declared the deliberation terminated without objection. This part records no numerical budget proposal or request, substantive agency presentation, or questions and answers; the disposition ends deliberation and does not itself approve an appropriation.

Commission on the Filipino Language (KWF): Budget sponsor Representative Ed Christopher S. Go said the KWF’s mandate is to preserve and promote Filipino and the country’s indigenous languages. He identified three priorities for the additional funding: developing orthographies for ten severely endangered languages, establishing five language monuments, and implementing the Filipino Sign Language Visual Communication Assessment for the Deaf. He said these programs would help keep languages alive, accessible, and responsive to people’s needs.

Rep. Renee Louise M. Co: Representative Renee Louise M. Co recalled the Filipino Sign Language Act’s recognition of FSL across education, justice, health, the workplace, media and public transactions, then asked how much KWF had appropriated and obligated for its Filipino Sign Language (FSL) unit since 2023 and prospectively for 2027. Sponsor Representative Ed Christopher S. Go answered that the amount was roughly ₱3.1 million per year, then clarified that the data were averaged. The exchange does not establish a flat allocation in each year.

Co asked about FSL in early education, including support for deaf children ages 0–7 to develop language skills; Go said no budget had been allocated, including historically. He likewise reported no funding for higher-education access support for deaf students, including in state universities, and no budget line identified for FSL media work and coordination, although he said media was included in the budget request. Asked about the National Council for Children’s Television as a platform for alternative learning, Go said there was no allocation and confirmed this was also the case for 2023–2026.

Co asked about FSL practitioners for accessible disaster advisories and information campaigns, and raised needs among deaf children and youth in BARMM. Go agreed with the concern but said KWF’s 3.1 million for all its programs was what it could manage; the regular inter-agency committee (IAC) also draws its funding from that allocation. Co requested a report on the answers and child- and youth-focused activities, plus the wishlist, hoping to receive them Monday for possible additional-budget requests. Go noted the request but did not promise a delivery date. Co said she would lobby at the proper time for increased KWF program funding, especially for deaf children and youth; no increase was approved in this exchange.

Rep. Antonio L. Tinio: Representative Antonio L. Tinio asked how KWF’s Filipino and Other Philippine Languages Development Program served the country's multilingual population. He separately identified ₱85.3 million as the program's actual budget. Sponsor Representative Ed Christopher S. Go described work on orthographies, glossaries, dictionaries, research and ethnolinguistic communities. Go said KWF covered 135 languages but was prioritizing ten of the most endangered. Asked which languages, he said the Commission would submit a list to the committee and then read out names. Tinio observed that the focus was endangered languages, many among Indigenous groups in Mindanao; Go agreed.

Tinio, identifying himself as principal author of Republic Act No. 11106 (the Filipino Sign Language Act), asked what KWF had budgeted for its implementation. Go identified the interpreting allocation summarized above. He agreed that it was insufficient and said KWF needed the additional funding summarized above. Go confirmed KWF had submitted an institutional amendment request to the Committee on Appropriations and that it could be considered by the Budget Amendments Review Subcommittee. Tinio said he would support the requested increase if submitted. He also noted two Deaf KWF officers were on job-order or contract-of-service status; Go confirmed proposed plantilla positions for both were included in that request. No amendment approval is recorded here.

Tinio raised Professor Romel Rodriguez's 2022 KWF manuscript, Kalatas, describing it as a collection of folk stories and life stories. Tinio said a KWF memorandum in August 2022 had labeled works by five authors subversive and red-tagged them, preventing publication; he said KWF later withdrew the memorandum, but Rodriguez's book remained unpublished. Tinio said Rodriguez had asked for an update and dialogue with KWF.

Go replied that the Commission would act after its ISO process and accreditation steps, and said KWF could not accept or publish a sole-authored manuscript that the author had withdrawn in 2024. Tinio disputed that account, citing a letter addressed to the Commission chair requesting publication and saying the book had an ISBN but had not circulated. Go repeated that KWF records showed withdrawal in 2024 and that it could not publish a sole-authored work. Asked whether KWF would meet with Rodriguez, Go acknowledged the request; the exchange does not resolve the manuscript's publication status or establish that dialogue occurred.

After closing his questions, Tinio moved to end debate on the KWF proposed budget. The Majority joined, and the presiding Deputy Speaker declared the interpellations terminated without objection. This ended the discussion; it did not approve an appropriation.

Budget deliberation concluded: The proposed budgets were taken up jointly for the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA), the National Archives of the Philippines (NAP), the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP), and the National Library of the Philippines (NLP). NCCA sponsor Rep. Ed Christopher S. Go said he was ready for interpellation, but this part contains no substantive presentation, budget figures, or member questions and answers; no agency request total is stated. Rep. Presley C. De Jesus moved to terminate sponsorship and debate for the joint budget deliberation. The majority joined the motion, and the presiding Deputy Speaker terminated the interpellations without objection. This ended debate only; it did not approve the agencies’ appropriations.

Rep. Presley C. De Jesus: Representative Presley C. De Jesus cited 24-hour PM2.5 readings of 48 and 46 micrograms per cubic meter on September 1 and 2, and additional air-quality-index readings he described as ranging from 203 to 245 and up to approximately 211. He said the concentrations exceeded the 35-microgram 24-hour limit he attributed to the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) under DAO 2020-14 and noted the health risks of fine particles. Budget sponsor Deputy Speaker Jose C. Alvarez agreed the readings were “very unhealthy,” said haze came from Indonesia, and emphasized that rain would clear it; he also discussed fires and palm-oil expansion there. He agreed with De Jesus that the haze concern was serious.

De Jesus asked about EMB Region 12’s reported reliance on its Koronadal station for PM2.5 analysis and whether monitoring, warnings, health coordination and pollution controls were adequate. Alvarez pointed to daily advisories and public information through radio and television. When De Jesus asked for the specific protocol activated, its date, notices to local government units (LGUs) and the Department of Health (DOH), and any action under the Asian Transboundary Haze Mechanism, Alvarez answered that information was disseminated through radio and television, described continuous air-quality monitoring, and cited daily advisories and radio programs. He did not identify the requested activation date, formal notices, or mechanism action.

De Jesus cited a 2027 National Expenditure Program target that 80% of highly urbanized cities and major urban centers meet ambient air-quality guideline values, against a reported 71% actual in 2025; Alvarez confirmed those figures. Alvarez clarified that DENR monitoring was ambient, or outdoors. De Jesus asked how many cities formed the denominator and which failed the standard in the latest complete year. Alvarez responded that performance was about 70%, the monitoring equipment was functioning, but the agency could not be everywhere and haze movement depended on wind. He did not identify the denominator or the cities that failed.

De Jesus asked whether Angat Dam had fallen to its minimum operating level that year. Alvarez said it had recently filled, overflowed, and released water, leading to flooding complaints in Pampanga; De Jesus acknowledged that his report was incorrect. Asked for the government’s target reservoir elevation on December 31, 2026, and NWRB’s risk assessment for supply restrictions during the 2026–2027 dry season, Alvarez gave a current figure of 212 meters and contrasted it with 150 meters “before,” without specifying a risk category. He said the dam was monitored and should not be allowed to overflow to the point of damage.

Rep. Presley C. De Jesus asked whether the National Water Resources Board (NWRB) Water Resources Vulnerability and Sustainability Assessment Program received about ₱137.3 million in 2026; Deputy Speaker Jose C. Alvarez confirmed it. De Jesus then asked whether the proposed 2027 amount was ₱100.6 million, and Alvarez confirmed the reduction, attributing cuts broadly to executive fiscal restraint. Later, Alvarez separately described NWRB’s reduction as ₱132 million to ₱95.999 million; the exchange does not reconcile these different figures.

De Jesus contrasted the reduction with the Water Resources Management Program’s increase from approximately ₱20 million to ₱50 million, or 154.5%, and asked if the two were related. Alvarez said the listings included water-related projects and that funds were prioritized for NWRB needs, but did not establish a direct offset. He cited the additional funding request summarized above after discussing the reductions; no specific program scope for that additional request was given. De Jesus asked which activities would be lost from the ₱36.7 million reduction to the vulnerability and sustainability assessment and how many assessments or monitoring products would be delivered. Alvarez described general assessment of waterways and groundwater recharge, saying the cut was equivalent to ₱36 million removed, but did not provide the requested activity counts. De Jesus supported DENR’s 2027 budget and urged an increase; no appropriation increase was approved in this round.

Rep. Dadah Kiram Ismula: Representative Dadah Kiram Ismula asked whether projects in or overlapping ancestral domains require free, prior and informed consent (FPIC); Deputy Speaker Jose C. Alvarez, answering as DENR sponsor, said FPIC is required and described examples including water systems, hydroelectric plants and plantations. On monitoring and enforcement, Alvarez said the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) is responsible where ancestral-domain certificates are involved and DENR is an observer; for sufficiently large projects, he pointed to an environmental compliance certificate (ECC) as a DENR planning tool. He did not identify a standalone DENR FPIC-monitoring line. In that exchange he cited ₱726 million for 2026 and a requested ₱816 million in the 2027 NEP for the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB), Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) and National Water Resources Board (NWRB), and said the amount is included in a general fund; the exchange does not assign those totals specifically to FPIC. Ismula questioned how implementation could be assured without a clear line item.

On unified maps of mining, geohazard, protected and watershed areas, Alvarez said an updated map existed and had been provided to concerned local government units. He cited ₱713 million to continue the mapping. Later, while discussing mapping and mine audits, he referred to ₱23 million to continue the mapping; the exchange does not establish whether that amount is a separate addition, a component, or a different scope. Asked about mine-audit supervision, the 2027 line item and its amount, Alvarez said he did not know the budget; no specific mine-audit allocation was identified.

Ismula raised reports that mining on Sibuyan Island by Altai Minerals Development Corporation had been halted amid resident and local-government opposition and calls to cancel the contract. Alvarez said the operation was suspended and that there was no plan yet to resume it. On financial or technical assistance agreements (FTAAs), he identified examples in Regions I, II and XII and MIMAROPA, while saying the Agusan Petroleum and Minerals application had not been allowed. He characterized DENR’s FTAA role as monitoring compliance and said monitoring requires field travel. He described Palawan as having a signed 50-year mining moratorium and urged other provinces to consider one. On violations, he said violations could lead to suspension, cases and fines. Alvarez agreed that ECC and FPIC compliance are relevant and said renewals are not automatic but reviewed individually.

Ismula cited DENR’s written explanations for FTAA No. 1 of OceanaGold Philippines and FTAA No. 2 for the Tampakan project—respectively, no grave abuse of discretion because the agreement’s intent was followed, and restoration of a lost term—and asked how these reasons were communicated to affected communities. Alvarez said communities must be engaged and offered his view that mining is not inherently harmful if there is no abuse. Ismula responded that DENR had sent her a letter and informed the local government, but had not informed or updated the community itself, and asked that the community be told. She closed by stressing the voice and rights of affected communities and Indigenous people.

Rep. Christopher Sheen P. Gonzales: Representative Christopher Sheen P. Gonzales asked whether the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and its Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) had investigated and inspected Homonhon Island in Eastern Samar after a prior budget briefing. Deputy Speaker Jose C. Alvarez, sponsoring the DENR budget, confirmed that the agency had conducted an inspection.

Gonzales asked the DENR to comprehensively review the Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA), including amendments, assignments, operating agreements, and compliance with its terms. Alvarez said that if an inspection led by Gonzales found further violations despite existing monitoring, Alvarez said the response would go beyond suspension to terminating the mining operation and revoking the MPSA. These were conditional commitments tied to findings, not a report that violations had already been established. Gonzales said Homonhon was historically significant to his province and praised the sponsor’s response.

Gonzales cited a constitutional requirement of at least 60% Philippine ownership for corporations entering into production-sharing agreements involving natural resources. He said he had received information that foreign interests might be involved in ownership, management, or actual operations on Homonhon, while expressly cautioning that he was not presenting this as established fact and asking the DENR to verify it.

Asked whether the DENR would coordinate verification with the appropriate agencies, Alvarez said the department would request information from PAOCC, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), and Bureau of Immigration (BI) to determine whether foreign interests were involved. Gonzales said he had a pending resolution to investigate the issue but urged the DENR to act promptly so a separate investigation would not be necessary. He fully supported the DENR budget; Alvarez said he would help ensure the promised actions were implemented soon. No completed verification or investigation outcome was reported in this exchange.

Rep. Sarah Jane I. Elago: Representative Sarah Jane I. Elago asked about mature Marikina trees potentially affected by the ADB Metro Manila Bridges Project and whether DENR had received earthballing-permit applications. Early in the exchange she cited a report of 23 or 20 trees, with 12 to be saved and eight considered for earthballing; Budget sponsor Deputy Speaker Jose C. Alvarez referred to 22 trees and said 12 might be allowed to remain. He said there was no application yet and consultations were ongoing. He objected to earthballing very large trees, describing 45 cm breast-height diameter and below as suitable, and suggested replacing a cut century-old acacia with 200 acacias. Elago supported preserving the mature trees and urged DENR not to approve an earthballing permit if one were later filed.

Elago later cited a study estimating 1,069 trees for Bridges 1–3, and gave figures of 514 for Bridge 1, 232 for Bridge 2 and 350 for Bridge 3. She also described a Bridge 1 update of 20 trees, 12 to be saved and eight proposed for earthballing. He said consultations for Phases 1 and 2 and tree-inventory work were still underway, with no cutting or earthballing applications; consultation for Phase 3 was not confirmed. Elago requested the environmental impact assessment and copies of environmental compliance certificates (ECCs), saying all three bridges already had ECCs. The sponsor said an assessment would be done upon application and determine whether an ECC applied, and said he did not know that tree cutting itself might have an ECC. He was also unaware of Elago’s report that DPWH and DepDev were discussing a project restructuring and possible Bridge 2 design or route changes. Alvarez defended replacement planting where road widening benefits a community, but also said he would respect residents’ preference for a narrower road to preserve an old tree. No permit approval was reported.

Elago raised a letter from residents of Purok 1A, Barangay Tadlac, Los Baños, asking DENR and the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) to certify the classification of land they said was inalienable public land, while a private claimant was seeking to evict residents. She requested an on-site inspection to assess the reported displacement of farmers and fishpond occupants and protect their livelihoods and residence. The sponsor responded in general terms about Laguna Lake reclamation and the absence of reclamation permits, rather than addressing the requested land classification or the private claim. Elago clarified that the residents’ concern involved a private resort claimant and said the letter had already been sent to DENR and LLDA. The sponsor asked for a copy and assured her DENR personnel would act; no inspection or specific resolution was reported.

Rep. Renee Louise M. Co: Representative Renee Louise M. Co described conflicting public accounts of water for the proposed Pax Silica development: that investors would provide their own supply, versus assurances that project needs could be met without compromising surrounding communities. She cited statements that a surface-water harvesting system could initially provide up to 120 million liters per day against estimated project needs of 65–90 million liters per day, with possible expansion to 300 million liters per day. She said nearby communities reported water shortages and urged the DENR assessment to account for community supply and distribution.

DENR budget sponsor Deputy Speaker Jose C. Alvarez said the development should provide its own water and power and that groundwater was not an infinite source that should be depleted. He also said the project could rely on underground or surface water, leaving the sourcing question unresolved in the exchange. He said the project remained at the planning stage, had no application, and had not supplied quantified water and power requirements or parameters for a DENR study. When Co asked whether the agency would assess dry-season river flows, drought and El Niño, groundwater recharge, agricultural demand, and population growth, Alvarez said they would address those questions when the project advanced. He described DENR work on the Pampanga and Bulacan rivers; when Co requested copies of the hydrological assessments, he promised to provide them after they were completed. Alvarez also suggested moving Indigenous claimants aside and providing livelihoods, without describing a consent process.

Rep. Renee Louise M. Co said the DENR’s Water Resources Vulnerability and Sustainability Assessment Program was reduced by 26.73% in the FY 2027 National Expenditure Program. She asked how the National Water Resources Board (NWRB) would fund additional hydrological and climate-risk assessments for the proposed Pax Silica development, and whether the DENR’s proposed budget could support that work. Alvarez acknowledged that the DENR budget was small for the task and urged Co to recommend an increase. Co said more funding would be needed if the agency had to conduct the impact assessment; the exchange did not establish an increase or an appropriation outcome.

Co asked whether a DENR national-importance certification had enabled the Critical Minerals Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the United States to be finalized quickly, and what substantive role the DENR had in drafting it. Alvarez first described the information as only a synopsis and offered Co a copy; when asked directly about the certification, he said the DENR had been cleared by the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA). He characterized the instrument as a nonbinding MOU rather than a memorandum of agreement, said the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) initiated the effort, and said the DENR and its mines bureau had helped change a proposed agreement into an MOU. He also said the executive order was issued by Malacañang and that the DENR was preparing mineral mapping. His statements did not clearly resolve the MOU’s signing status: he referred to it as an existing MOU, but later said no memorandum had yet been signed. Co questioned whether the MOU was boilerplate and whose interests it served; the substantive drafting question remained unresolved.

Co requested a copy of the map of identified mineral-rich areas referenced in the framework. Alvarez said it was a public record that could be furnished. He also offered to provide a copy of the MOU; no copies are reported as delivered in this exchange. Alvarez favored extracting minerals with full environmental compliance and rehabilitation, and asked for greater DENR funding to oversee extraction.

Co raised reported large-scale mining and exploration-permit concerns in Nueva Vizcaya, including Kasibu and Dupax del Norte. She said a case or petition had been filed with the Mines and Geosciences Bureau seeking cancellation of an exploration permit over allegedly faulty community consent, and asked the DENR to furnish updates. Alvarez agreed. Co said communities and colleagues remained concerned about destructive mining and urged action in clear cases; no case outcome was reported.

Co asked how DENR would prevent illegal transboundary e-waste shipments while Basel Convention amendments awaited implementation. Alvarez said transshipment could pass through without hazardous cargo being unloaded or crossing the customs line. He distinguished this from domestic imports, said recyclables could be allowed, and discussed laboratory or licensed waste-to-energy use, but said the needed facility did not currently exist. Co’s question about a coordination body with the Bureau of Customs received another transshipment explanation, rather than confirmation of such a body. Separately, asked for data on recycling companies reportedly involved in illegal shipments, Alvarez said DENR had none. Co cited more than 250 reported shipments she said were illegal under Philippine law and the Convention, and urged prevention; this was her claim, not a confirmed agency count.

Co said aerosolized fog came from inside the DENR perimeter during a July 26 protest by farmers, fisherfolk, and Indigenous advocates, and relayed protesters’ concern that pesticide gas or chemical crowd control had been used. Alvarez said a fumigation happened at the same time by coincidence and was not intentional, apologized, and said he would ask forgiveness. Co acknowledged the apology but emphasized that the caravan protested livelihood threats from land conversion, mining, and illegal reclamation, and asked that the incident not recur. Alvarez promised it would not happen again.

Rep. Leila M. de Lima: Representative Leila M. de Lima raised continued dredging around Liwliwa Beach in San Felipe, Zambales, describing reported shoreline damage and effects on resorts, workers and fishing grounds. Deputy Speaker Jose C. Alvarez, responding as DENR sponsor, denied that Liwliwa itself was being dredged, described the site as unstable unclassified forest where occupants had been warned, and referred to notices to vacate or demolish. He said the large vessels he had seen were removing lahar and sand from river mouths for Manila Bay reclamation. He said operators were mostly Filipino, while some used rented Chinese vessels; he also said DENR was verifying China Harbor Engineering Company. De Lima contrasted this with a regional director’s earlier statement that no Chinese firm dredged in Zambales and sought a reliable answer. She cited a Philippine Ports Authority list she said showed 67 vessels dredging in Botolan and San Felipe during 2020–2025, many with Chinese vessel names.

De Lima named Kangling 539, Mao Hua 8 and Andakang 3689 and asked whether the identities, dredging activity and permits had been verified, including reports tying Mao Hua 8 to an interception and Chinese nationals, and Andakang 3689 to China Harbor Engineering. Alvarez said some equipment could be Chinese while a Filipino entity held a permit or chartered a vessel; he referred to Marina permits for inland-water operation and said it was possible for Chinese-operated vessels to operate under such arrangements. He did not confirm that the named vessels had valid dredging permits or resolve whether they dredged in the Zambales rivers; he said that question remained to be checked. De Lima said the sponsor’s account required further verification. The exchange leaves her vessel-identity and permit questions unresolved, alongside Alvarez’s denial of dredging at Liwliwa and his separate account of river dredging for reclamation. De Lima asked whether DENR had assessed whether dredging could worsen known shoreline hazards before issuing or renewing permits; Alvarez reiterated that dredging was at river mouths without providing that assessment.

De Lima described reports concerning mining in Aroroy, Masbate, including alleged effects on waterways, fish, residents’ health and a tailings facility. She asked whether the DENR’s environmental compliance certificate reviews included an independent public-health assessment and Department of Health data. Alvarez did not answer those specific review questions. He said local complaints should receive attention, suggested consulting the governor, and said the DENR would immediately inspect when reports of this kind were brought to it. No completed assessment or inspection result was reported in this exchange.

De Lima questioned the department’s rising unused appropriations and asked why it sought additional FY 2027 funding. She cited department totals of ₱2.03 billion in 2024 and ₱2.23 billion in 2025, and first stated that the Office of the Secretary (OSEC) accounted for ₱1.96 billion, or 88.5% of unused funds; she later referred to ₱1.97 billion unused by OSEC alone in 2025. These are the member’s separately stated figures and were not reconciled in the exchange.

Alvarez described “almost” ₱2 billion as unused in 2025, then identified ₱1.9 billion as unobligated as of December 31, 2025 and carried over as a continuing appropriation. He attributed non-use to failed bidding, changes in Water Resources Management Program project sites, and deferred maintenance and operational work at a sewage treatment plant; he said the funds remained available and mentioned negotiation after repeated failed bidding. The sponsor’s ₱1.9 billion unobligated/continuing-appropriation figure is distinct from de Lima’s ₱1.96 billion and ₱1.97 billion OSEC figures. His explanation did not specifically resolve her question about the additional 2027 request. De Lima also cited a fall in the department’s disbursement rate from 84.4% in 2024 to 81.5% in 2025, and NWRB’s 58.1% rate.

De Lima said the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) budget was shrinking while air pollution worsened; she cited reports placing pollution at 3.8 times the World Health Organization limit, named Pasay as the most polluted city in 2025, and identified Malabon, Caloocan, Quiapo and Mandaluyong in real-time monitoring. She asked whether the EMB had targeted interventions for these locations. Alvarez acknowledged EMB underperformance but responded with other budget items: ₱59 million for operations of seven newly legislated protected areas, ₱39 million for operating and maintaining nine marine-specific research centers, and ₱34 million in total for an implementation item whose name is unclear in the transcript. He also referred to 2,765 Forest Protection Officers. The exchange did not clearly establish the year or appropriation status of these items or their relationship to EMB’s air-quality budget. This response did not identify an EMB-specific targeted air-quality intervention or explain an even-versus-severity-based allocation. When de Lima asked whether this meant EMB was underperforming, Alvarez said the money was being used.

De Lima nevertheless supported passage of the proposed DENR budget conditionally, asking for concrete, monitorable delivery, improved absorption and enforcement on the ground. Alvarez assured her that her request had been noted by the DENR; no specific measurable commitment or later outcome was stated in this unit.

Rep. Antonio L. Tinio: Representative Antonio L. Tinio questioned what the Philippines had agreed to in the critical-minerals MOU and whether Philippine law defines “critical minerals.” He contrasted this with the US statutory definition and said the US treated the minerals as critical to its economic and national security, including its defense and technology supply chains. He characterized Pax Silica and the MOU as a US effort to secure supply amid competition with China. Asked to identify a Philippine law or executive order defining or listing the minerals, DENR sponsor Deputy Speaker Jose C. Alvarez said he was not aware of a law. Tinio then stated that there was no executive-order list; Alvarez did not provide one or a Philippine statutory definition.

Tinio objected that the MOU’s “first look” language gives participants an expected first opportunity to invest in critical-mineral assets, and argued that its asset-sale, permitting and price-framework provisions could favor US interests and constrain Philippine choices. Alvarez replied that first look was only an opportunity, the MOU was nonbinding, and it did not surrender sovereignty. On permitting, he said the Executive was reviewing mining-permit documentation and that streamlining would not waive sovereignty or environmental requirements. He also argued that the arrangement could attract private investors to extract and process minerals in the Philippines and create economic activity. Tinio challenged the lack of a guaranteed purchase or investment commitment; Alvarez likewise described the arrangement as nonbinding and subject to negotiation, so no investment or purchase was assured in this exchange.

Tinio also questioned whether the MOU’s price-floor and preferential-trading language could leave the Philippines disadvantaged or steer sales away from other markets. Alvarez favored facilitating investment and trade while retaining sovereignty and environmental safeguards. Their disagreement over how the provisions would operate remained unresolved in the exchange.

Tinio distinguished DENR’s domestic air-quality monitoring and public advisories from the formal information request or consultation mechanism he cited under the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution. Alvarez described monitoring, radio and television warnings, and advice to wear a mask, but acknowledged that the formal step had not yet been taken and said it would proceed through ASEAN. Alvarez said the Philippines did not attend the July Bali meeting because DENR was not a member of the subcommittee; the exchange recorded an affirmative response about attending the October Conference of the Parties in Da Nang. When Tinio asked whether the harm to Filipinos would be raised at the November ASEAN Summit and how damages could be pursued, Alvarez did not give a plan or answer the damages question. He asked Tinio to memorialize the case he had presented so DENR could use it.

Rep. Edgar R. Erice: Representative Edgar R. Erice asked Deputy Speaker Jose C. Alvarez, answering as DENR sponsor, whether the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) charter reaches nearby provinces, cities and municipalities. Alvarez said it does, and confirmed that reclamation within Laguna Lake was covered, including areas in Rizal, Muntinlupa and Taguig. Asked whether LLDA had investigated the reclamation projects and what the status of each case was, Alvarez cited DENR notices of violation issued in Taguig and Muntinlupa. Erice then asked whether cases had been referred to the Office of the Ombudsman; Alvarez answered that no referrals had yet been made.

Erice moved on behalf of the minority to terminate consideration of the DENR budget. Majority Leader Mark Anthony G. Santos said the majority joined the motion. Presiding Deputy Speaker Mercedes K. Alvarez put the joint motion covering the DENR proposed budget, including attached agencies and corporations; hearing no objection, she terminated the interpellations. This was a procedural termination of consideration, not approval of an appropriation.

After the session resumed, the floor leader moved to suspend consideration of House Bill No. 10858 under Committee Report No. 638. The presiding Deputy Speaker approved the unopposed motion. This was separate from the earlier termination of DENR interpellations.