OVP to seek P733-M budget for 2026 — Sara Duterte

Vice President Sara Duterte said Monday that the Office of the Vice President (OVP) would submit a P733 million budget proposal for fiscal year 2026, which is the same amount approved for her office this year.
Duterte said that she is no longer expecting a higher budget allocation for the OVP since she is not allied with the Marcos administration. That is why, she said, she decided to propose the same amount next year, with only a few adjustments considering the inflation.
'Hindi siya kalayuan doon sa approximately P700 million na ibinigay noong nakaraang taon para sa Office of the Vice President. Hindi siya malayo sa 2025 budget,' she said at a press conference.
(That is not far from the approximately P700 million given last year to the Office of the Vice President. That is not far from the 2025 budget.)
'Inaasahan ko naman na hindi ibibigay 'yung budget ng [OVP] dahil nga hindi naman kami kaalyado ng administrasyon at nakita na natin 'yun nung nakaraang taon, na syempre kung hindi ka sumusunod, hindi ka kaalyado, ay hindi ka ay hindi ka mabibigyan ng pondo para sa mga programa ng opisina mo,' she added.
(I expect that a higher OVP budget will not be given because we are not an ally of the administration and we saw that last year, that if you do not follow them, you are not an ally, then you will not be given funds for the programs of your office.)
Duterte also said that she does not want to see members of her office being "embarrassed" by lawmakers both from the House of Representatives and the Senate during the budget deliberations.
She also said that she is still unsure whether or not she will attend the deliberations for the proposed 2026 budget of the OVP.
Last year, the House decided to reduce the budget of the OVP from the originally proposed P2 billion to P733 million amid Duterte's refusal to answer lawmakers' questions on OVP budget use, including confidential funds.
The Senate retained the House-introduced budget cut despite calls from Duterte's allies to restore some of OVP's proposed funding for social services.
The Vice President lamented the budget cut, saying that around 200 OVP personnel could lose their jobs and some projects of her office would have to be halted.
'Wala kaming madagdag na project for 2026. Tutuloy pa rin lahat... maliban lang sa PANsarap at medical at burial assistance,' Duterte said.
(We will have no additional projects for 2026. Everything will continue... except for PANSarap and medical and burial assistance.)
Despite a significant P1.4 billion budget cut under the 2025 General Appropriations Act, Duterte said her office, so far this year, continued to provide service to the people.
She said that the OVP's medical assistance program provided aid to 127,984 beneficiaries, while the burial assistance program had 25,495 beneficiaries.
Meanwhile, over a million passengers were given free bus rides under the OVP's Libreng Sakay Program. Thousands of students and indigent Filipinos were also given help through other projects of the OVP.
'Naging mas mapaghamon ang pagpapatakbo namin ng mga programa na ang pakay ay pagbibigay ng solusyon sa ilang mga pangunahing suliranin ng mga Pilipino. Ngunit ang mga batikos at sistematikong atake laban sa OVP ay hindi naging sapat para tayo ay humina, huminto, at mabigo,' Duterte said.
(It became more challenging for us to run programs that aim to provide solutions to some of the major problems of Filipinos. But the criticisms and systematic attacks against the OVP were not enough to weaken, stop, and fail us.) — RSJ, GMA Integrated News

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

GMA Network

3 hours ago

• GMA Network

Ombudsman on House panel saying it did not file complaint vs. VP Sara: Then why give us committee report copy?

Ombudsman Samuel Martires on Saturday questioned the House why its committee gave them a copy of its report on its investigation into the allegations against Vice President Sara Duterte. This was after House spokesperson Princess Abante on Friday said the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability did not file a criminal and administrative complaint against Duterte before the Office of the Ombudsman. "Eh bakit ba nila kami fu-furnish-an ng kopya ng result ng kanilang investigation? Ano 'yun, gagawin naming ano, pardon the word, pero ano 'yun, gagawin naming scratch paper? Ano 'yon? We're not even a part of that investigation of the House of Representatives kaya hindi kami dapat furnish-an ng kopya," Martires said in an interview on Dobol B TV. (Then why did they furnish us a copy of the result of their investigation? What is that? Do they expect us to, pardon the word, use it as scratch paper? What's that? We're not even a part of that investigation of the House of Representatives so we should not have been furnished a copy [of the report].) Abante made the clarification in light of the Office of the Ombudsman's June 19 order asking Duterte to answer complaints of technical malversation, falsification, falsification of public documents, perjury, bribery, corruption of public officers, plunder, betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution. The Ombudsman order identified the House good government and public accountability panel as the complainant. 'Unang una, hindi ang House ang nag-file ng (First of all, the House did not file the) complaint. What the House initiated was the impeachment trial through the transmission of the Articles of Impeachment,' Abante said in a press conference. Abante said that the House only furnished Martires a copy of the recommendations of the panel resulting from its inquiry on the budget use of Duterte, including the disbursement of confidential funds. Confused? Martires meanwhile on Saturday said Abante may just have been confused. "Siguro naguguluhan lang sila o naguguluhan lang 'yung spokesperson. Ang nag-endorse sa amin ng committee report ng House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability ay ang Secretary General mismo. At sinasabi ng Secretary General, sa kanyang sulat, na itong committee report ni Representative Joel Chua was adopted by the House of Representatives," he said. (Maybe they are just confused or the spokesperson is confused. The one who endorsed to us the committee report of the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability is the Secretary General himself. And the Secretary General said in his letter that the committee report of Representative Joel Chua was adopted by the House of Representatives.) READ: House adopts panel report urging plunder, other raps vs. Sara Duterte "So ang naging complainant dito na ginawa namin is the House of Representatives Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability, represented by its chairperson, Representative Joel Chua. 'Yun. So sino ang gagawin naming complainant?" Martires said. (So we made the complainant the House of Representatives Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability, represented by its chairperson, Representative Joel Chua. That's it. So who should we make as complainant?) Martires cited the Pharmally case in connection with the government's purchase of P4 billion worth of RT-PCR test kits. "If we remember the Pharmally case, it was not even a committee report kasi hindi lahat ng mga senador ay nag-concur kay (because not all senators concurred with) Senador Richard Gordon at sa (and with the) committee report. It is just considered as a mere result of an investigation of the Blue Ribbon Committee," he said. "Ang naging complainant du'n ay sina [former] Senador Gordon at Senador Risa Hontiveros (The complainants there became Senator Gordon and Senator Risa Hontiveros), representing the Blue Ribbon Committee," Martires said. He said he did not even hear a whisper thereafter from Gordon asking why he was made the complainant. "Si Senadora Imee, nag-file din ng kaso 'di ba, lately lang. Sino ang complainant du'n? (Senator Imee also filed a case recently. Who was the complainant?) 'Yung Senate Committee on Foreign Relations represented by Imee Marcos," the Ombudsman said. "Eh dito, sino ang magiging complainant? Alangan namang kami ang complainant? Hindi kami ang nag-imbestiga ng kaso," Martires said. (In this case, who will be the complainant? It can't be us. We did not investigate the case.) "Nanggaling sa kanila at detalyado ang (It came from them and it detailed the) offenses that were allegedly committed by the Vice President and some of the employees and officers of DepEd [Department of Education] and the Office of the Vice President," he added. Martires said the House panel's committee report "was treated as a complaint." He explained further: "Wala naman kaming pinagkaiba sa piskalya sa public prosecutor's office ng Department of Justice. Kapag nag-file ka ng reklamo sa prosecutor's office, ikaw ang nagrereklamo at hindi 'yung piskal." (It is not any different from a fiscal at the public prosecutor's office of the Department of Justice. When you file a complaint at the prosecutor's office, you are the one complaining, not the fiscal.) "Pero kung finile ng piskal 'yung iyong reklamo, nakita niya may katuturan, may katotohanan, finile sa husgado, ang nagrereklamo du'n ay hindi na 'yung complainant kundi ang People of the Philippines," Martires added. (But if the fiscal filed the case because he saw it was relevant and truthful, and he filed it in court, the complainant will not be the person but the People of the Philippines.) GMA News Online contacted Abante to get her comment but has yet to receive a reply as of posting time. Probe to continue The Ombudsman will continue the investigation into the allegations against Duterte, he said. "Itutuloy namin ang imbestigasyon [kay Vice Pres. Duterte]. Para ano at binigyan kami ng kopya ng report ng investigation. Para ano? Para basahin lang namin?" Martires said. (We will continue the probe. For what purpose were we given a copy of the report of the investigation? For what? For us just to read?) "Diretso ang aming imbestigasyon," he added. (We will continue with our investigation.) "Bibigyan namin ang Kamara ng (We will give the House) sufficient time to file also their pledge from the time that they received a copy of the counter affidavit of the Vice President and the other respondents," Martires said. If the House committee does not want to cooperate with the Office of the Ombudsman, then they may have to use their power to cite them in contempt, he said. "Kung ayaw nilang makipag-cooperate sa amin, we might be forced, mapipilitan kami na gamitin ang aming power to cite them in contempt," Martires said. (If they do not want to cooperate with us, we might be forced to use our power to cite them in contempt.) "Hindi kami nagbibiro. Trabaho ito na ibinigay sa amin ng taumbayan. Trabaho ito na ibinigay sa amin ng Konstitusyon... Ano, bibigyan kami ng sulat, nirereklamo mo isang barangay captain, ano, babasahin lang namin?" he added. (We are not joking. This is a job given to us by the public. It is our duty given by the Constitution. If we will be given a letter of complaint against a barangay captain, will we just read it [and not do anything]?) Asked who will be cited in contempt in this matter, Martires said: "Aba'y 'di kung sino ang ayaw mag-... (Whoever does not want...) Kasi this is a committee represented by Representative Joel Chua. So we'll ask Representative Joel Chua once the Vice President or any of the respondents there will file their counter affidavit. We will ask the committee kung gusto nilang mag-file (if they want to file a) ng reply. Kung hindi (If not), it will be submitted now for resolution by the Office of the Ombudsman." If the committee does not want to file a reply, the Ombudsman will then consider them having waived their right to reply. "Ngayon 'pag sinabi nilang, 'Ay hindi naman kami nag-file sa inyo,' if they insist on doing that, ay siguro naman... I am not threatening them, eh siguro hindi na ito magandang relasyon between the House of Representatives at Office of the Ombudsman na ayaw nating mangyari," Martires said. (Now if they say, 'But we did not file [the complaint with you], if they insist on doing that, then maybe... I am not threatening them, maybe this signifies a not so good relationship between the House of Representatives and the Office of the Ombudsman that we do not want to see.) "I think they should cooperate with us because they are the ones na kumbaga sa ano, kinalabit kami, kiniliti kami (we were the ones contacted)," he added. Ample time Martires said once Duterte and the other respondents give their counter affidavit, the House of Representatives will be furnished a copy. "Sila mismo, si Vice President mismo ang magfu-furnish ng copy sa kanila," he said. (The Office of the Vice President will furnish them a copy.) But what if Duterte says why should I give my counter affidavit to the Ombudsman when there is no complainant? Martires replied: "E tingnan natin kung ano ang kahihinatnan (then let's see what would happen)." "Hindi namin puwedeng isantabi, we cannot close our eyes, hindi namin puwedeng ipikit ang aming mga mata na merong isang reklamo na ibinigay sa amin, 'di ba," he said. (We cannot ignore it, we cannot close our eyes to a complaint given to us, right?) "Hindi pa kami umaabot du'n sa puntos ng pagde-determine ng probable cause. Nakita lang namin du'n sa report na may sufficient na ebidensiya. So gusto naming sagutin ng mga respondent. We advised Vice President Sara 'yung nakasaad sa report na 'yun," Martires said. (We have not yet reached the point where we will determine if there is probable cause. We just saw in the report that there is sufficient evidence. So we want the respondents to give their response. We advised Vice President Sara that this is what is in the report.) "Du'n kami magde-determine, based on counter affidavit at du'n sa report. Pag-aaralan namin. If there is a probable cause, then we will make that determination later on," he added. (That's where we will determine [if there is probable cause], based on the counter affidavit and the report. We will study them.) Martires said they have not received word yet from the Office of the Vice President on whether the respondents will submit a counter affidavit. "Wala naman (No, we haven't received any word). Although natanggap na ng (But it was received by the) Office of the Vice President. Siguro naman (Maybe) they will submit the counter affidavit within that period of 10 days," he said. The OVP said it received the Ombudsman's order at about 9 a.m. Friday, June 20. —with a report from Jamil Santos/KG, GMA Integrated News

GMA Network

6 hours ago

• GMA Network

Marcos on influencing Sara Duterte impeachment: I choose not to

President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. has said it is his decision not to influence the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte, insisting that the matter is in the hands of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Marcos made the remark in an episode of the BBM Podcast on Saturday, when he was asked about views that the President has a say in the decision of the impeachment court even with separation of powers between branches of government. "If a president chooses to do that, I choose not to," Marcos said. Duterte has brushed off Marcos' pronouncements that he was not in favor of her impeachment, as their feud continued to simmer with lawmakers pressing forward with House investigations and endorsing the impeachment complaint to the Senate. Advocacy groups, meanwhile, have called out Marcos for conveying a supposed lack of urgency to make Duterte accountable. Marcos has said the impeachment will take Congress' attention away from passing important pieces of legislation. Speaking on the podcast, Marcos reiterated that he has been preoccupied with lowering retail prices of rice and improving public transportation, among other initiatives of his administration. The Chief Executive stood pat that the impeachment process lies with the legislative branch. "That's not my, I'm busy with the transport, with the rice, all of the different things that we are doing, that, that nauubos ang oras ko doon. Put it bluntly. Wala naman akong papel doon sa impeachment eh," the President said. (That's not my, I'm busy with the transport, with the rice, all of the different things that we are doing. My time is devoted to these things. I have no role in the impeachment.) Senate President Francis "Chiz" Escudero has denied that Marcos was behind the delay in the presentation of the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. Relations between Marcos and Duterte, running mates in Eleksyon 2022, have turned frosty following House probes into the drug war under the administration of her father, former President Rodrigo Duterte, as well as the handling of confidential funds by offices under her leadership. Last Thursday, House Secretary General Reginald Velasco said the Vice President will not be attending Marcos' fourth State of the Nation Address (SONA) on July 28. Malacañang has said it is her choice if she prefers not to attend the event. — VDV, GMA Integrated News

GMA Network

20 hours ago

• GMA Network

House prosecution says impeachment court spox should not speak for VP Sara

Senate impeachment court spokesperson Regie Tongol should speak for the court, not for the camp of Vice President Sara Duterte, House prosecution panel spokesperson and lawyer Antonio Bucoy said Friday. Bucoy was reacting to Tongol's comments on Thursday when he said that there is a high chance that the Vice President will make a motion to dismiss the impeachment complaint. Tongol said, 'Ang action na ini-expect natin from the defense by filing an ad cautelam appearance—na magpa-file sila ng either answer with affirmative defense questioning the jurisdiction, or a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.' (We expect the defense to question the jurisdiction of file a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.) 'As spokesperson, he is the mouthpiece of the court. He expresses the mindset of the court. [But] he's telegraphing the defense to file a motion to dismiss,' Bucoy told GMA News Online in a text message. 'Recall that the partiality of some members of the court had already been raised as an issue. I priorly stated that while I am prepared to give the judges the benefit of a doubt, the spokesperson's subject statement convinces me otherwise,' Bucoy added. House spokesperson Princess Abante agreed. 'Do not speak for the defense. Speak for the impeachment court,' Abante said of Tongol. 'That is why we are saying that what we want is a Senate impeachment court that is ready to accept the evidence, listen to the evidence and decide based on the evidence presented,' Abante added. In a "24 Oras" report by Saleema Refran, Tongol said, "Hindi pag-aabogado sa isang panig o paglilito sa publiko ngunit pagsagot lamang sa scenario setting na tanong sa akin nang naayon sa aking karanasan sa litigation." "Ito ay bahagi ng ating tungkulin hindi lamang bilang spokesperson ngunit bilang abogado rin upang ipaliwanang ang legal proceedings sa lahat," he also said. "The Impeachment Court is committed to neutrality, fairness and due process. Respect for the court is fundamental to democracy, so it is vital for the stability of this democracy for all to work together with mutual respect…and for litigants to avoid unnecessary attacks that only serve to hinder our collective efforts to proceed with the impeachment process," Tongol added. In a separate statement, House lead prosecutor and 4Ps party-list Representative Marcelino Libanan commended the senator-judges who uphold decorum and refrain from public commentary, but he did not mention names. 'We commend our senator-judges who have chosen the high road of restraint. Silence, in the context of an ongoing trial, is not passivity—it is professionalism,' Libanan said. 'In this highly charged political moment, those who speak least may actually understand the gravity of their judicial role the most. They recognize that the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, is a constitutional tribunal—not a venue for political theater," Libanan added. Libanan then cited the Constitution's demand for neutrality from judges in any legal or quasi-legal proceeding. 'Every statement a judge makes outside the courtroom is a potential challenge to fairness inside it. The discipline shown by some senators is therefore not just admirable—it's essential,' Libanan said. 'We urge all senator-judges to uphold the same level of discretion. Let the facts and the Constitution—not noise—shape the outcome of this process,' he added. Over 200 lawmakers endorsed the impeachment complaint against Vice President on February 5, accusing her of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and other high crimes.—LDF, GMA Integrated News